E 
 
 B5G 
 
 \ St^r-^ 
 
 
 M 
 
 T"- 
 
 ^^AAAXHTVV 
 
 rl VhJU L^auMj, 
 
 y-, / 'U ... 
 
 V-ff'" 
 
 
 BMB^ 
 
 s.>\i-i-,^4> 
 
 ^ /f:^'^ 
 
 'i^^H^ifl 
 
 ^ vli^ 
 
 
Glass. 
 Book. 
 
 r 
 
 hOO 
 
 B_^£> 
 
/ V-^-f- 
 
 tislrict Court of % Initelj Stales 
 
 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW-YORK. 
 
 THE UNITED STATES 
 
 vs. 
 
 THE SCHOONER STEPHEN HART AND HER 
 CARGO. 
 
 IN PRIZE. 
 
 OPINION OF THE COURT, 
 
 BY JUDGE, BETTS. 
 
 JOHN W. AMEEMAN, PEINTEK, 
 
 No. 47 Cedar Street. 
 
 1863. 
 

 '0^ 
 
 al 
 
Jislrtct Court ai tjc Initeir ^Mts 
 
 FOR THE SOUTHERN" DISTRICT OF NEW-YORK. 
 
 The United States 
 
 vs. 
 
 In Prize. 
 
 The Schooner Stephen Haet and| 
 
 HER CARGO. 
 
 OPINION OF THE COURT. 
 
 Betts, J. The schooner Stephen Hart was captured, as law- 
 ful prize of war, by the United States vessel of war Supply^ 
 on the 29th of January, 1862, in latitude 24° 12' north, and 
 longitude 82° 14' west, oif the southern coast of Florida, 
 about 25 miles from Key West, and about 82 miles from 
 Point de Yeacos in Cuba, and was sent to the port of New- 
 York for adjudication, under convoy of her captor. A libel 
 was filed against her in this Court on the 18th of February, 
 1862. On the 1st of May, 1862, a claim to the vessel was in- 
 terposed by John Myer Harris, of Liverpool, England, as her 
 sole owner. The test oath to that claim was made by Charles 
 N. Dyett, the master of the schooner. On the same day, a 
 claim was put in to the wliole of the cargo of the schooner, by 
 Samuel Isaac, on behalf of himself and Saul Isaac, as co- 
 
4 
 
 partners and subjects of Great Britain, doing business in Eng- 
 land under the firm name of S. Isaac, Campbell & Co., and 
 claiming to be the sole owners of the cargo. The test oath to 
 that claim was made bj Samuel Isaac. On the 25th of Octo- 
 ber, 1S62, another claim to the schooner on behalf of 
 Harris was interposed. In this second claim, Harris is de- 
 scribed as late of Liverpool, England, but now of Sherbro', on 
 the "Western coast of Africa, at present residing in England, 
 merchant. This second claim sets np that he is the sole 
 owner of the schooner, and is a subject of the crown of Great 
 Britain. 
 
 In the test oath to the second claim of Harris, and which 
 test oath is made by him, it is alleged that, on the 28th of Sep- 
 tember, 1861, lie agreed to become the purchaser of the 
 schooner for £1,750, to be paid October 28th, 1861 ; that it 
 was afterwards arranged that the money should be paid on the 
 14th of October; that an abatement of £5 10s. 3d. was 
 thereupon made from the purchase money; that the bal- 
 ance of £1,Y44 9s. 9d. was paid ; that the vessel was at Bristol, 
 England, at the time of her sale ; that, after such purcliase, she 
 took a cargo from Bristol to London, and was then loaded, 
 partly at London and partly at Erith, with a cargo of arms, 
 ammunition and military clothing ; and that such cargo was 
 the sole property of S. Isaac, Campbell & Co. It is to be noted 
 that this test oath does not state from w^hom he purchased 
 the scliooner, or to wliom he paid the money, or whether he 
 received any bill of sale. It is also silent as to any hiring or 
 charter of the vessel to S. Isaac, Campbell & Co. It states that 
 the vessel " cleared for the port of Cai'denas j'''* that it was not 
 intended that she should "enter, or attempt to enter, any port 
 of the United States;'''' that "her true and only destination 
 with said cargo was Cardenas, wliere the same was to be de- 
 livered ;" that the vessel w^as thence to sail to the claimant in 
 Africa, if she obtained a suitable cargo for that country; and 
 that the vessel and her cargo are British property. 
 
 The test oath of Samuel Isaac to the claim on bolialf of S. 
 Isaac, Campbell & Co. to the whole of the cargo, alleges that 
 
/^<i 
 
 tbe cargo was shipped by that firm, consisting of himself 
 and ISaul Isaac, on or about December 2d, 1861, partly at Lon- 
 don and partly at Erith ; that the vessel was bound for Carde- 
 nas in the Island of Cuba ; that the cargo consisted of arms, 
 ammunition and military clothing, and is wholly the property 
 of that firm ; that its members are British subjects; that the 
 vessel cleared/br Cardenas ', that the cargo was destined for 
 Cardenas; that it was not intended tliat the vessel should 
 "enter, or attempt to enter, any port of the United States^ or 
 that the cargo should be delivered at any port in the United 
 States ^^"^ and that "the true and only destination Avas Carde- 
 nas, where the same was to be delivered, and the vessel was 
 thence to sail to Africa, if she obtained a suitable cargo for 
 that country." It does not set up any charter of the vessel. 
 
 The testimony in preparatorio, consisting of the depositions 
 •of Charles I*^. Dyett, (the master,) Benjamin H. Chadwick, 
 (the first mate,) John Leisk, (the cook and steward,) Charles 
 ISTellman, (the second mate,) and Robert Allan, (an able sea- 
 man,) was taken in February, 1862. The case was not sub- 
 mitted to the judgment of tlie Court until the term of July, 
 1863. It was suggested at the hearing, in excuse of what 
 seemed to be the great delay in the case, that such delay was 
 owing to the pendency before the Supreme Court of the Uni- 
 ted States, on appeal, until March last, of various prize suits, 
 which it was supposed might disj)Ose of material questions in- 
 volved in this case. But, from such report of the decisions in 
 those cases as this Court has been furnished with, it does not 
 appear that the main questions involved in the present case 
 have been determined by the Supreme Court in any of the 
 cases alluded to. 
 
 Various interlocutor}^ proceedings took place in the present 
 case, a reference to some of which is necessary. 
 
 Before the filing of the libel, and on the 14th of February, 
 1862, this Court ordered that so much of the cargo of the 
 schooner as consisted of arms, powder and munitions of war, 
 should be placed in the custody of the commandant of the 
 !N"avy-yard at New- York, and that the Prize Commissioners 
 
6 
 
 should make a full inventory of all the articles delivered to 
 the commandant, and that they should be appraised, and the 
 appraisement be filed with the inventory. In pursuance of 
 this order, the appraiser appointed by the Court, Mr. Orison 
 Blunt, discharged the cargo of the schooner, and stored it in 
 the ordnance stores at the Navy-yard. In his report, which 
 was filed on the 25th of March, 1862, he states that, in un- 
 loading the vessel, he did not have the benefit of any invoice ; 
 that he took an accurate account of every case, box and bale, 
 and of their numbers and marks ; tliat the vessel was stowed 
 with great care, and the bales and cases pressed in with jack- 
 screws, which made great precaution necessary in taking them 
 out, for fear of an explosion of some of the ammunition or 
 loaded shell; that, upon opening the after hatch and- taking 
 out some of the cases, he discovered some four tons of pow- 
 der, and also 1,008 loaded shell, with percussion primers affix- 
 ed, and some 600,000 ball cartridges, or fixed ammunition for 
 small arms, which were all removed and placed in the maga- 
 zines of the Navy yard ; that, after all the cargo had been 
 placed in the ordnance stores without any loss or damage, he 
 opened every entire case and bale, and inspected and counted 
 accurately every article, and found them to be all in good con- 
 dition, and that every article was of value for use in the army 
 and navy of the United States, except a large quantity of 
 " rebel buttons," manufactured in Great Britain and stamped 
 with a "rebel device." Tiie appraiser annexed to his report a 
 catalogue of the cargo and his appraisement of each article. 
 Tbe following articles appear to have constituted the cargo of 
 the vessel: 5,740 long Enfield rifles, with triangular bayonets; 
 1,260 short Enfield rifles, with sabre bayonets ; 660 rifled En- 
 field carbines, with sabre bayonets ; 2,640 British rifled mus- 
 kets, with triangular bayonets; 200 British smooth bore mus- 
 kets, with triangular bayonets; 320 Brunswick rifles, with 
 sabre bayonets ; 375 cavahy sabres ; 6,800 gray blankets ; 
 1,750 white blankets; 4: of Blakeley's 2f inch bore rifled can- 
 non, (six pounders,) with 2,000 cartridge bags and 1,008 shell 
 for the same, loaded and capped ; 120,000 cartridges, fixed 
 
/^y 
 
 ammunition for Enfield rifles ; 100,000 percussion caps ; 2,160 
 cartridge boxes ; 4,095 knapsacks; 4,000 ball bags and belts; 
 100,000 Brunswick rifle cartridges ; 410,000 Minie rifle car- 
 tridges ; 5,000 cartridges for smooth bore English muskets, each 
 cartridge consisting of a round ball and two buck-shot ; 1 ,540 
 yards of gray army cloth; 11,453 yards of steel mixed gray 
 army cloth for uniforms ; 625 gross of brass buttons " for in- 
 fantry, artillery and cavalry, for the rebel army, marked C. S. 
 A." ; 15,432 pairs of stockings ; 2,000 pairs of brogan slices ; 
 592 pairs of russet shoes, Blucher pattern ; 762 pairs of black 
 leather shoes, Blucher pattern ; 2,220 water-proof covers for 
 mess tins ; IT cases and 3 bales of trimmings for army clothes 
 and uniforms, consisting of linings, cord, braid, lace, thread, 
 buckram, &c. ; 109 yards of scarlet cloth for army uniforms ; 
 7,500 yards of white twilled flannel for lining for army over- 
 coats ; 2,250 yards of brown holland for the same purpose ; 
 1,040 gross of buttons for army uniforms and clothing; 7,800 
 pounds of cannon powder, and a considerable quantity of car- 
 tridge paper, cones, and other appurtenances for small arms, 
 gun slings, medicine, lint, bayonet scabbards, surgeons' equip- 
 ments, scissors, thimbles, books and eyes, shears, canvas lin- 
 ing, alpacca and tarpaulings. The appraisement of the entire 
 cargo was $238,945 37. 
 
 Under orders of this Court of the 3d of March and IGth of 
 April, 1862, the Enfield rifles and certain other articles found 
 on board of the schooner were delivered to the Navy Depart- 
 ment for the use of the United States, at the appraised value 
 of $169,467 50. By another order of the Court, made March 
 4th, 1862, another portion of the cargo, amounting to the ap- 
 praised value of $14,196 11, was delivered to the War Depart- 
 ment, the Ordnance Department and the Sanatory Depart- 
 ment, for the use of the United States. 
 
 Under an order of this Court, made on the 7th of May, 1862, 
 the schooner and the remainder of her cargo, wdiich remainder 
 amounted, at its appraised value, to $55,281 76, were sold at 
 public auction. The vessel was sold for $10,000. The pro- 
 ceeds of the vessel and of her cargo, including the amounts paid 
 
8 
 
 by the Navy and War Departments for the articles taken by 
 them, were paid into the registr}^ of the Court. 
 
 After the cook and steward, John Leisk, had been examined 
 on the 13th of February, 18G2, an affidaTit made by him on 
 the 25th of February, 1862, was presented to the Court, in 
 which he stated that, in giving his testimony before the Prize 
 Commissioners, he did not fully answer the 32d interrogatory 
 in relation to certain papers on board, and their description, 
 and what was said on their being discovered, although he had 
 testified to those facts on an examination made of him on 
 board of the capturing vessel. An order was thereupon made 
 by the Court on the same day, on the motion of the District 
 Attorney, that the 32d standing interrogatory be propounded 
 anew to the witness Leisk, and that his additional answer 
 thereto be received and added to his deposition, with the like 
 force and effect as if the same had been taken at the time of 
 his original examination. On the same day that interrogatory 
 M^as again propounded to him, and his further answer thereto 
 forms part of the depositions in jpreparaiorio. 
 
 On the 24th of October, 1 862, the Court, on the motion of the 
 District Attorney, made an order that Benjamin H. Chadwick, 
 the first mate, who had been examined in pre^aratorio, on the 
 standing interrogatories, on the 13th of February, 1862, should 
 be again examined by the Prize Commissioners on the stand- 
 ing interrogatories, and that the question of the admissibility 
 of his evidence so to be given should stand over for future de- 
 termination. This order was founded upon an afiidavit made 
 by Chadwick on the 21st of October, 1862, in which he stated 
 that he was one of the persons captured on the Stephen Hart, 
 and was entered upon her shipping articles as her first mate, 
 although in fact he was entrusted with the virtual control ; 
 that he had examined a copy of his testimony given by him 
 on his examination on the 13th of February, 1862, and found 
 that his answers to the 11th, 36tli and 39th interrogatories, as 
 well as to any others which asked for the true destination 
 of the vessel and her cargo, on the voyage on which she was 
 captured, were imperfect, and did not disclose the entire truth 
 
/^/ 
 
 9 
 
 in relation to tlie subject-matter inquired of, and that lie de- 
 sired the privilege of correcting the same on a re-examination, 
 by stating that he well knew that the real destination of the 
 cargo of the vessel, if not of the vessel herself, was one of the 
 blockaded " Confederate ports of the Southern States," and 
 that the j^ort of Cardenas in Cuba was to be used simply as an 
 intermediate port of call and of transhipment of the cargo, if 
 it was there determined by Charles J. Helm, an agent there of 
 the " Confederate States," whose instructions the witness was 
 directed to follow, that the cargo should be transhipped into a 
 steamer, which could, with greater facility, be used in running 
 the blockade; that the witness was employed for that purpose by 
 reason of his knowledge of the Southern coast, and of the navi- 
 gation of the blockaded ports and harbors, and was so em- 
 ployed after his examination specially on that point at the 
 counting-house of S. Isaac, Campbell & Co., the owners of the 
 cargo, in London, where, at tlie time, were William L. Yancey 
 and other persons interested in the " Southern insurrection ;" 
 that he, the witness, had been in no manner influenced to 
 make such disclosure by the libellants or the captors, or any 
 one in any manner connected with either of them, but had 
 been induced to do so solely by the persuasions of his wife, 
 who was a loyal woman then residing in Boston, and whose 
 just reproaches had caused him to regret that he had ever lent 
 his aid to such a cause, and to determine, as far as he could, to 
 atone for whatever mischief he might have done. Upon the 
 hearing of the motion for the further examination of Chad- 
 wick, the application was opposed by the claimants of the 
 cargo, upon an affidavit made by Chadwick on the 6th of May, 
 1S62, in which he stated that certain letters and papers be- 
 longing to him were seized by the captors, and retained by 
 them until the 28th of April, 1862, when, without any applica- 
 tion to the Court, a portion of them were taken from the rest 
 of the papers seized on board of the schooner, and handed 
 over to him by Mr. Elliott, one of the Prize Commissioners ; 
 that the letters so handed to him were a part of the letters 
 mentioned in the examination in preparatorio of John Leisk, 
 
10 
 
 and stated by Leisk to have been placed by liim in a tea-pot 
 at the request of Chadwick, and to have been afterwards dis- 
 covered by the crew of the capturing vesseL The Court was 
 subsequently furnished with an affidavit made by Mr. Elliott, 
 in which he stated that, after tlie arrival of the schooner at 
 New- York, one of the officers in charge of her placed in his 
 hands some letters which he represented to be private papers 
 belonging to Chadwick ; that those letters were not presented 
 by the prize master as a part of the papers seized with the 
 schooner as her papers, but as private letters belonging to 
 Chadwick ; that, under the advice of the Assistant District 
 Attorney, and at the request and with the consent of Chad- 
 wick, the deponent carefully read the letters, and found them 
 to be only private letters to Chadwick from his wife, and that 
 there was not in them one word relating to the schooner, or 
 her cargo, or her voyage, or her destination; and that there- 
 upon, on the furtlier advice of the Assistant District Attorney, 
 the letters were handed to Chadwick as his private property, 
 several months before his re-examination, and with no reference 
 thereto, and with no knoAvledge or suspicion that any such re- 
 examination would ever occur. 
 
 There were found on board of the schooner, at the time of 
 her capture, her register and sundry bills, certificates, tele- 
 graphs and letters, a clearance, two logbooks, a copy of the 
 United States Coast Survey for 1856, and sundry other papers, 
 but no invoices, no bills of lading and no manifest. 
 
 The register of the schooner is dated at Liverpool, England, 
 October 15th, 1861. It r/ipresents her as having been built 
 at Greenport, in the State of New-York, in the United States, 
 in the year 1859, and her foreign name as having been Ta- 
 maulijpas. Her tonnage is stated at 219.85 tons. Her owner is 
 stated to be John Myer Harris, of Liverpool, merchant. The 
 register contains the following printed memorandum at its 
 foot: "Notic^. A certificate of registry granted under the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, is not a document of title." 
 On the back of the register is endorsed a certificate, made at 
 the Custom House in London on the 15th of November, 1861, 
 
/J^f 
 
 11 
 
 stating that Charles K. Djett had that day been appointed 
 master of the schooner. 
 
 ^ There were also found on board of the schooner a letter 
 signed " R. H. Leonard, ship Alexander, Confederate States," 
 dated at Bristol, England, October 29th, 1861, and addressed 
 to Chad wick ; and a letter from Leonard addressed " To Mr. 
 B. H. Chadwick, alias Tommy, first officer Stephen Hart," 
 purporting to be written at Bristol, England, but without 
 date; and a letter signed "John Johnson, ship Koami, care 
 J. P. Snell & Co,, Bristol, England," and addressed "Mr. 
 Benjamin H. Chadwick, schooner Stephen Hart, Surrey Canal, 
 London," and dated at Bristol, England, October 29th, 1861. 
 The contents of these three letters will hereafter be specially 
 referred to. 
 
 By sundry certificates found on board of the schooner, it 
 appears that she cleared from London, on the 19th of ]N"ovem- 
 ber, 1861, for Cuba generally, neither the port of Cardenas 
 nor any other port in Cuba being mentioned as her destination 
 in any of her regular papers. 
 
 There was also found on board of the schooner a letter in 
 the following words : " 71 Jermyn street, London. S. W., m- 
 vember 19, 1861. J. Crawford, Esqre, H. M. Consul General, 
 Havannah. Dear Sir : In confirmation of ray last, permit me 
 to ask your assistance and advice for Captain Dyett, of the 
 schooner ' Stephen Hart,' should he need it during his stay at 
 Havannah. Permit me to be yours, most faithfully, Saul 
 Isaac." 
 
 There was also found on- board of the schooner a telegraphic 
 despatch from S. Isaac, Campbell & Co., 71 Jermyn" street, 
 London, to Lloyd's agent at Deal, received at Deal November 
 23d, 1861, in the following M^ords: "Please detain schooner 
 Stephen Hart, bound for Cardenas, for orders. We pay all ex- 
 penses. Reply per telegraph. Letter per post." There was 
 also found a letter dated "London, :N'ov. 22, 1861," in the 
 following words: "Captain Dyett, schooner Stephen Hart. 
 Dear Sir,— We require some matters arranged before the 
 schooner leaves. You will receive this per Lloyd's agent. 
 
12 
 
 Attend to the orders, and wait nntil jou hear from yours 
 truly, S. Isaac, Campbell & Co." There was also found 
 another telegraphic despatch from S. Isaac, Jermyn street, 
 London, to Lloyd's agent at Deal, received at Deal November 
 24th, ISiil, in the following words: " Captain Dyett will pro- 
 ceed on his voyage at once, and make up for lost time. Wish 
 him a successful trip." 
 
 Tlie shipping articles of the crew of the schooner, found on 
 board, are dated ISTovember 16th, 1S61, and specify that the 
 voyage is to be " from London to Cuba and Sierra Leone, and 
 any port ^ ports on coast of Africa, ^~ !North ~ South 
 America ~ West Indies, and back to a final port of dis- 
 charge in the United Kingdom. Voyage not to exceed 
 twelve months." On these shipping articles the name of 
 Benjamin 11. Chadwick is entered as chief officer, his signa- 
 ture appearing upon them, and he is stated to be an Ameri- 
 can, aged 29 years, and to have last served on board the ves- 
 sel called the Tamaulipas, and to have been discharged there- 
 from at London on the 2d of JS^ovember, 1861. The date of 
 his joining the Stephen Hart is stated as November 1st, 1861, 
 although he is placed in a list under the head of " substitutes," 
 with two others who are severally stated as joining the vessel 
 November 22d and November 29th, and no place is inserted 
 as the place of his joining the vessel, although the place is in- 
 serted in the case of the other two substitutes. Tiie wages of 
 Chadwick are put down as £9 per calendar month, the wages 
 of the mate, whose place he took, being stated at £6 per 
 month. In one of the two log-books found on board of the 
 vessel, namely, the official log-book, the name of Benjamin II. 
 Chadwick appears as mate of the vessel, and no other person 
 is named as mate ; and the date of the commencement of the 
 voyage is stated in that log-book as November 19th, 1861. 
 In the other log-book, which is an ordinary sea log-book, 
 there appears, under date of November 21st, 1861, an entry in 
 the handwriting of Chadwick, by whom that log-book pur- 
 ports on its face to have been kept, to the effect that the mate 
 had not come to perform his duty, and the log-book then pro- 
 
/^/? 
 
 13 
 
 ceeds as follows: "Wherefore I, Benj. H. Chadwick, have 
 this day engaged with Capt. Charles E". Dyett to proceed on 
 the voyage, having been engaged as ship-keeper on board since 
 the 2d of the present month, the crew consisting of six seamen, 
 cook and steward, captain, mate and boatswain — in all num- 
 bering ten persons." The shipping articles show eleven per- 
 sons, there being seven seamen, one of the seamen, as appears 
 by the official log-book, having been shipped at Gravesend on 
 the 22d of November and discharged because of illness, at 
 Deal, on the 29th of November, and another seaman having 
 been shipped at Deal in his place on the last named day. 
 The name of one seaman which appears on the shipping arti- 
 cles does not appear on the official log-book, and there is a 
 memorandum on the shipping articles that he deserted. This 
 reduces the number of persons composing the crew to ten, in- 
 cluding Chadwick. 
 
 The entry on the title-page of the sea log-book is, that the 
 schooner was on a voyage from London to Cardenas, Cuba, 
 commencing November 19th, 1861, and that the log-book is 
 kept by Benjamin H. Chadwick. It appears, from entries in 
 that log-book, that the pilot took charge of the schooner " on a 
 voyage to Cuba," on the 19tli of November, and that she was 
 on that day " towed by steam from the Grand Surrey dock to 
 Erith, to take in the remainder of cargo," and that she arrived 
 at Erith the same day ; that, on the 20th of November, she 
 took in from lighters some sixty cases of cargo, and that, on 
 the evening of the same day, she was towed to Gravesend ; that 
 she remained at Gravesend until the 22d of November, when 
 she proceeded down the river, coming to anchor, in the after- 
 noon, off the North Foreland Light ; that, on the 23d of No- 
 vember, she proceeded to the Downs, where she came to an- 
 chor, and where the " captain received instructions from par- 
 ties in London" to wait until further orders ; that, on the 24th 
 of November, she received orders to proceed on her voyage ; 
 that she did not start until the 2d of December, her sea log 
 commencing at noon on the 3d of December; that she pur- 
 sued her voyage through December and January, no particu- 
 
14 
 
 lar occurrence being noted until the 15th of January, when 
 she passed 18 miles to the northeast of Desirada Island, one of 
 tlie Leeward Islands in the West Indies, and also between the 
 Island of Gandaloupe and the Island of Montserrat, in the 
 latitude of about 16° 30' N. ; that, from this point, she pro- 
 ceeded to the southward of Hay ti and to the northward of the 
 Island of Jamaica, passing the latter on the 21st of January, 
 and thence to the southward of the Grand Cayman Island on 
 the 23d of January, and thence around the western end of 
 the Island of Cuba, making Cape St. Antonio, the extreme 
 western point of that island, at 3.30 P. M. on the 26th of 
 January, and seeing the last of Cape Antonio light, 20 miles 
 distant, bearing south half east, at 10 P. M. of tliat day, her 
 latitude, by observation at noon on the 27th of January', be- 
 ing 23° 24' north. There are no entries in the log-book after 
 the latter hour. 
 
 The Coast Survey found on board of the schooner, as before 
 mentioned, is a report from Professor Bache, Superintendent 
 of the United States Coast Survey, for the year ending Novem- 
 ber 1st, 1856, and contains, among other things, the following 
 charts : A comparative chart of the entrance into Charleston 
 harbor by Maffit's Channel — A preliminary chart of the en- 
 trance into North Edisto River — A preliminary chart of the 
 sea-coast of South Carolina, from Charleston to Tybee, Georgia, 
 with sailing directions — A preliminary chart of St. Simon's Bar 
 and Brunswick Harbor — A preliminary chart of St. Mary's 
 Bar and Fernandina Harbor — A comparative chart of the 
 same — Two charts of St. John's Eiver — And a preliminary 
 chart of the Florida Reefs. These charts, as folded in the 
 book, have each of them written in pencil on the outside the 
 nature of its contents, thus : " Maffit's Channel ;" " North 
 Edisto ;" " Sailing directions for several So. Ca. & Ga. ports ;" 
 "St. Simon's;" "Fernandina;" " St. John's River;" "Flori- 
 da Reefs." 
 
 Captain Dyett, on his examination in preparatorio, produced 
 two letters, which are annexed to his deposition. One of them 
 is a letter of instructions to himself from S. Isaac, Campbell & 
 
/S/ 
 
 15 
 
 Co., and is dated " 71 Jermyn street, Military Warehouse, late 
 21 St. James street, London, S. W., November 19, 1861;" 
 and the other is a letter from Sanl Isaac to " Charles J. Helm, 
 Esq., care of J. Crawford, Esq., Havannah," and is dated " 71 
 Jermjn street, London, November 19, 1861." The contents 
 of these two letters, and the circumstances under which they 
 were produced by Captain Dyett, will be referred to here- 
 after. 
 
 Before proceeding to a consideration of the merits of the 
 case, it is proper to advert to the objections made to the second 
 examinations of the witnesses Leisk and Chadwick. The 
 question of the admissibility of the second deposition of Chad- 
 wick was ordered by the Court to stand over to be determined 
 at the hearing of the main cause. The question of the admis- 
 sibility of depositions given on the re-examination of persons 
 found on board of a ca]3tured vessel, is one resting in the sound 
 discretion of the Court, and no authority has been cited which 
 decides that the practice is one that is not to be permitted 
 under circumstances such as existed in the present case. The 
 case of The Pizarro (2 Wheaton^ 227) is not regarded as an 
 authority against the course pursued in this case. "While the 
 Court ought to guard the practice with care, lest it may be the 
 means of introducing abuse and of leading to fraud and impo- 
 sition, the present case seems, on the fullest consideration, to be 
 one in which the propriety of admitting the re-examination of 
 the witnesses Leisk and Chadwick cannot be questioned. If 
 the case, upon the depositions as originally taken, without the 
 re-examinations of the two witnesses, were a clear one in favor 
 of the claimants, and free from all doubt, the Court would 
 hesitate, perhaps, to admit the re-examinations. But, upon 
 the testimony, without the re-examinations, the case is not only 
 not one free from doubt, but one clearly calling for the con- 
 demnation of both the schooner and her cargo ; and the mat- 
 ters testified to by those witnesses upon their re-examinations 
 are not only entirely consistent in themselves, but are cor- 
 roborated by the other testimony in the case, and by the docu- 
 ments and papers found on board of the schooner. The cases 
 
16 
 
 ■which were cited by the counsel for the claimants upon the 
 point of the admissibility of depositions taken on re exami- 
 nation, {The Haabet, 6 Ch. Bob. 54 ; The Ostsee, Spinks^ 
 Part 1, 189; The Leucade.ld. 227; The Aline and Fanny, 
 Spinl's, Part 2, 327,) do not bear at all upon the question as 
 to the admissibility of these re-examinations. Tliey merely 
 affirm the well-known principles of prize law, that affidavits of 
 the captors are not to be admitted where, on the evidence of 
 the persons on board of the captured vessel, there are no cir- 
 cumstances of suspicion in the case ; that the case is, in the 
 first instance, to be tried on evidence coming from the cap- 
 tured; that if, upon such evidence, no doubt arises, the property 
 is to be restored ; and that the privilege on the part of the 
 captors of giving further proof is, in such cases, rarely granted. 
 Within these principles, this Court has endeavored, in all proper 
 eases, to exhaust the knowledge of the persons found on board 
 of captured vessels. Thus, in the case of the Peierhrff, pending 
 in this Court at the same time with the present case, the deposi- 
 tion of Captain Jarman, the master of the captured vessel, 
 had been taken on the 1st of April, 18G3, he having intervened 
 as claimant for the interest of his principals, the owners of the 
 Peterhoff and her cargo, and having made the test oath to 
 such claim on the 21st of April, 1863. Some of the other wit- 
 nesses having deposed to the spoliation of papers in the case, 
 the Court, upon an affidavit made by Captain Jarman, and 
 upon the application of the claimants, and notwithstanding 
 the objections of the counsel for the libellants and the captors, 
 permitted Captain Jarman to be re-examined upon one of the 
 standing interrogatories, and to add to his answer thereto the 
 explanatory statement contained in his affidavit. This ex- 
 planation, and the matters deposed to by liim on his further ex- 
 amination, were intended to relieve the owners of the P^i^^r- 
 Aojf and her cargo from the injurious effects of his conceal- 
 ment, on his first examination, of matters which ought to have 
 been testified to by him in answer to the standing interroga- 
 tories, and of matters which were testified to by other wit- 
 nesses. The Court is entirely satisfied that it exercised its 
 
/62^ 
 
 17 
 
 soiind discretion in permitting the re examination in the case 
 ot the Feterhoff, and the exercise of a like discretion calls for 
 ^le admission in evidence of the depositions of Leisk and 
 i-iiaciwick, taken on re-examination in the present case. They 
 are accordingly admitted in evidence. 
 
 Yeiy important qnestions of public law have been dis- 
 cussed before the Conrt in the present case, and in the kindred 
 cases of the ^^'^^^^^ and the Peterhoff, all of which, with 
 the case of the Gertrude, have been pending before the Court 
 at the same time. In the latter case no claimant appeared for 
 either the vessel or the cargo, she having been captured while 
 on a voyage from Nassau, in endeavoring to run the blockade 
 into a port of the enemy. 
 
 Many of the principal questions involved in the present 
 case, and m the cases of the SpringhoJc and the Peterhof, are 
 a ike ; and, as the conclusion at which the Court has arrived in 
 all of tliose cases is to condemn the vessels and their cargoes 
 I shall announce, in this case, the leading principles of pSblic 
 law which lead to a condemnation in all the cases. 
 
 On behalf of the libelants, it is urged in this ease, 3st. That 
 the Stephen Hart and her cargo were enemy's property when 
 the voyage m question was undertaken, and when the capture 
 was made; 2d. That the schooner was laden with articles con- 
 traband of war, destined for the aid and use of the enemy, and 
 on transportation by sea to the enemy's country at the time of 
 the capture ; 3d. That, with a full knowledge, on the part of the 
 owner of the vessel and of the owners of her cargo, that the 
 ports of the enemy were under blockade, the vessel and her 
 cargo were dispatched from a neutral port with an intention 
 on the part of the owners of each, that, in violation of the 
 blockade, both the vessel and her cargo should enter a port of 
 the enemy. 
 
 On the part of the claimants, it is maintained, 1st. That the 
 transportation of all articles, including arms and munitions of 
 war, between neutral ports in a neutral vessel, is lawful in 
 time of war; 2d. That if a neutral vessel, with a cargo be- 
 longmgto neutrals, be in fact on a voyage from one neutral 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 port to another, slie cannot be seized and condemned as la-R-ful 
 prize, although she be laden with contraband of war, nnless it 
 be determined that she was actually destined to a port of the 
 enemy upon the voyage on which she was seized, or unless 
 she is taken in the act of violating a blockade. 
 
 It is insisted, on the part of the claimants, that the Stephen 
 Hart was, at the time of her capture, a neutral vessel, carry- 
 ing a neutral cargo from London to Cardenas — both of them 
 being neutral ports — in the regular course of trade and com- 
 merce. On tlie other side, it is contended that the cargo was 
 composed exclusively of articles contraband of war, destined, 
 when they left London, to be delivered to the enemy either 
 directly, by being carried into a port of the enemy in the 
 Stephen Hart^ or by being transhipped at Cardenas to another 
 vessel ; that Cardenas was to be used merely as a port of call 
 for the Stephen Hart, or as a port of transhipment for her 
 cargo ; that the vessel and her cargo are equally involved in 
 the forbidden transaction ; and that the papers of the vessel 
 were simulated and fraudulent, in respect to her destination 
 and that of her^cargo. A condemnation is not asked, if the 
 cargo was in fact neutral property, to be delivered at Cardenas 
 for discharge and general consumption or sale there, but is 
 only claimed, if the cargo was really intended to be delivered 
 to the enemy at some other place than Cardenas, after using 
 that port as a port of call or of transhipment, so as to thus 
 render the representations contained in the papers of the ves- 
 sel false and fraudulent as to the real destination of the vessel 
 and her cargo. 
 
 It would scarcely seem possible that there could be any seri- 
 ous debate as to the true principles of public law applicable 
 to the solution of the questions thus presented ; and, indeed, 
 the law is so well settled as to make it only necessary to see 
 whether the facts in this case bring the vessel and her cargo 
 within the rules which have been laid down by the most emi- 
 nent authorities in England and in this country. 
 
 The principles upon which the Government of the United 
 States, and the public vessels acting under its commission, have 
 
/^6 
 
 19 
 
 Te as aw " " '"""" "T' '" "'"^""S ^^^'^ »<' -'- 
 
 Tthf Tl *'";'"^'"'<"'''"^ '^^'"^d by the Navy Department, 
 
 Fn M 4 ; >""l.' ,'.''' '" ""^ '^'•^™' commanders of the 
 
 United States and which mstructions are therein declared to 
 
 f™l cabW 't, ™'' °^ "'"'" '"^"••■««°n«. «o far as they are 
 apphcableto the present case, is, that a vessel is not to be 
 
 ITon iTe' t T'r ""T" ^r'""^ ™^^''' ^° <•-• - '^ -^-' 
 reasonable to believe that she is engaged in carryino- contra- 
 band o, war for or to the insurgents, and to tlieir ports^drc %, 
 blolada" "' ^ "•^■^^'^'P'"'''''' " °'l'^"vise 'violating /e 
 
 nJIr.hr'" ''?""■" °^"''"' instructions, so far as they bear 
 
 of- n T ■"" '"™,'™'' '" *•"' '=^^«' '^ ^"' «" Wlieation 
 ot the doctrine m regard to captures, laid down by tlie Govern- 
 ment of the United States at a very early day. In an ordl 
 nance of the Congi.ss of the Confederation, which went into 
 effect on the 1st of February, 1782, (5 Wheaton, Append^, 
 p. 120,) It was declared to be lawful to capture and to obtain 
 condemnation of " all contraband goods, wares and merehan" 
 discs to whatever nations belonging, although fonnd in a neu- 
 tral bottom, ^fdestmedfor the me o^ an enemy." 
 
 rhc soundness of these principles, and the fact that the law of 
 nations, as apphcable to eases of prize, has been observed and 
 applied by the Governmcut of the United States and its Courts 
 during he present war, was fully recognised by Earl Eussell 
 
 HerBritannicMajcsty'sprincipalSecretaryofStateforForeio-a 
 Affairs, in his remarksmade in the House of Lords, on the ISth rf 
 May last_ Earl Eussell there stated that the judgments of the 
 United States Prize Courts, which had been reported to Her 
 Majesty s Government during the present war, did not evince 
 any disregard of the established principles of international law • 
 that tlie law officers of the Crown, after an attentive considera^ 
 tion of tile decisions which had been laid before them, were of 
 opinion that there was no rational ground of complaint as to 
 the J udgments of the American Prize Courts ; and that the law 
 
20 
 
 of nations in regard to the search and seizure of neutral vessels 
 had been fully and completely acknowledged by the Govern- 
 ment of the United States. On the same occasion Earl Bus- 
 sell remarked : " It has been a most profitable business to send 
 swift vessels to break or run the blockade of the Southern 
 ports, and carry their cargoes into those ports. There is no 
 municipal law in this or any countr}^ to punish such an act as 
 an oifence. I understand tliat every cargo which runs the 
 blockade and enters Charleston is worth a million of dollars, 
 and that the profit on these transactions is immense. It is 
 well known that the trade has attracted a great deal of atten- 
 tion in this country from those that have a keen eye to such 
 gains, and that vessels have been sent to Nassau in order to 
 break the blockade at Charleston, Wilmington and other places, 
 and carry contraband of war into some of the ports of the 
 Southern States." He added : " I certainly am not prepared 
 to declare, nor is there any ground for declaring, that the Courts 
 of the United States do not faithfully administer the law ; that 
 they will not allow evidence making against the captors ; or 
 that they are likely to give decisions founded, not upon the 
 law, but upon their own passions and national partialities." 
 Pie also said, that in a case of simulated destination, that is, a 
 vessel pretending that she is going to Nassau, when she is in 
 reality bound to a port of the eueiliy, the right of seizure exists. 
 The then Solicitor-General of England (Sir Eoundell Pal- 
 mer) stated, in the House of Commons, on the 29th of June 
 last, referring to the cases of the Dolphin and the Pearly 
 decided by the judge of the District Court for the Southern 
 District of Florida, (those vessels having been captured while 
 ostensibly on voyages from Liverpool to Nassau, and it hav- 
 ing been held by the Court that the intention of the owners of 
 the A'essels was that they should only touch at Nassau, and 
 then go on and break the blockade at Charleston,) that " if 
 the owners imagined that the mere fact of the vessel touching 
 at Nassau, when on such an expedition, exonerated her, they 
 were very much mistaken ;" that the principles of the judg- 
 ment in the case of the Boljyhin " were to be found in every 
 
/3^ 
 
 21 
 
 volarae of Lord Stowell's decisions ;" that it was well known 
 to everybody that there was a large contraband trade between 
 England and America by way of Xassan ; that it was absnrd 
 to pretend to shut their eyes to it ; and that the trade with 
 Nassau and Matamoras had become what it was in conse- 
 quence of the war. 
 
 The Foreign Office of Great Britain, in a letter to the owner 
 of the Peterhoff, on the 3d of April last, announced as its con- 
 clusion, after having communicated with the law officers of 
 the Crown, that the Government of the United States has no 
 right to seize a British vessel hona fide bound from a British 
 port to another neutral port, unless such vessel attempts to 
 touch at, or has an intermediate or contingent destination to, 
 some blockaded port or place, or is a carrier of contraband of 
 war destined for the enemy of the United States ; that Her 
 Majesty's Government, however, cannot, without violating the 
 rules of international law, claim for British A'essels navigating 
 between Great Britain and such neutral ports, any general 
 exemption from the belligerent right of visitation by the cruis- 
 ers of the United States, or proceed ujDon any general assump- 
 tion that such vessels may not so act as to render their capture 
 lawful and justifiable ; that nothing is more common than for 
 those who contemplate a breach of blockade or the carriage of 
 contraband, to disguise their purpose by a simulated destina 
 tion and by deceptive papers ; and that it has already hap- 
 pened, in many cases, that British vessels have been seized 
 while engaged in voyages apparently lawful, and have been 
 afterwards proved in the Prize Courts to have been reallj'' 
 guilty of endeavoring to break the blockade, or of carrying 
 contraband to the enemy of the United States. 
 
 The cases of the Stephen Hart, the SpTinghoTi, the Petef'hoff, 
 and the Gertrude, illustrate a course of trade which has 
 sprung up during the present war, and of which this Court 
 will take judicial cognizance, as it appears from its own records 
 and those of other Courts of the United States, as well as from 
 public reputation. Those neutral ports have suddenly been 
 raised from ports of comparatively insignificant trade to marts 
 
22 
 
 of the first magnitude. Nassau and Cardenas are in the vicin- 
 ity of the blockaded ports of the enemy, while Matamoras is 
 in Mexico, nj^on the right Lank of the Kio Grande, directly 
 opposite the town of Brownsville, in Texas. The course of 
 trade, in respect to Nassau and Cardenas, has been generally to 
 clear neutral vessels, almost always under the British flag, 
 from English jDorts for those places, and, using them merely as 
 ports either of call or of transhipment, to either resume new 
 voyages from them in the same vessels, or to tranship their 
 cargoes to fleet steamers, with which to run the blockade, the 
 cargoes being composed, in almost all cases, more or less, of 
 articles contraband of war. The character and course of this 
 trade, and its sudden rise, are very properly commented upon 
 in a dispatch from the Secretary of State of the United States 
 to Lord Lyons, of the 12th of May, 18G3. 
 
 The broad issue upon the merits in this case is, whether the 
 adventure of the Stephen Hart was the honest voyage of a 
 neutral vessel from one neutral port to another neutral port, 
 carrying neutral goods between those two ports onh^, or was 
 a simulated voyage, the cargo being contraband of war, and 
 being really destined for the use of the enemy, and to be in- 
 troduced into the enemy's country by a breach of blockade 
 by the Stephen Hart, or by transhipment from her to another 
 vessel at Cardenas. It is conceded in the argument of the 
 leading counsel for the claimants, that if the property was 
 owned by the enemy, and was fraudulently on its way to the 
 enemy as neutral property, it was enemy's property, and was 
 liable to capture, no matter whence it came or whither it was 
 bound ; and tbat, if the vessel were really intending and 
 endeavoring to run the blockade, the property was liable to 
 capture, no matter to whom it belonged or what was its char- 
 acter ; but that if it was neutral property, in lawful commerce^ 
 it was safe from seizure. 
 
 The (question whether or not the property laden on board of 
 the Stephen Hart was being transported in the business of 
 lawful commerce, is not to be decided by merely deciding the 
 question as to whether the vessel was documented for and 
 
/^J 
 
 23 
 
 sailing upon a voyage from London to Cardenas. The com- 
 merce is in the destination and intended use of the property 
 laden on board of the vessel, and not in the incidental, ancil- 
 lary and temporary voyage of a vessel, which may be but one 
 of many carriers through ■which the property is to l-eacli its 
 true and original destination. If this were not the rule of tlie 
 prize law, a very wide door would be opened for fraud and 
 evasion. A cargo of contraband goods, really intended for the 
 enemy, might be carried to Cardenas in a neutral vessel sail- 
 ing from England with papers which, upon their face, import 
 merely a voyage of the vessel to Cardenas, while, in fact, her 
 cargo, when it left England, was destined by its owners to be 
 delivered to the enemy, by being transhipped at Cardenas 
 into a swifter vessel. And such, indeed, has been the course 
 of proceeding in many cases during the present war. 
 
 l^or is the unlawfulness of the transportation of contraband 
 goods determined by deciding the question as to whether their 
 immediate destination was to a port of the enemy. Thus it is 
 held that, in order to constitute the unlawfulness of the trans- 
 portation of contraband goods, it is not necessary that the 
 immediate destination of the vessel and cargo should be to an 
 enemy's country or port ; for, if the goods are contraband, and 
 destined to the direct use of the enemy's army or navy, the 
 transportation is illegal. If an enemy's fleet be lying, in time 
 of war, in a neutral port, and a neutral vessel should carry 
 contraband goods to that port, not intended for sale in the 
 neutral market, but destined to the exclusive supply of the 
 hostile forces, such conduct would be a direct interposition in 
 the war, by furnishing essential aid in its prosecution, and 
 would be a departure from the duties of neutrality. {Halleck 
 on International Law^ chapter 24, section 11, page 576.) The 
 proper test to be applied is, whether the contraband goods are 
 intended for sale or consumption in the neutral market, or 
 whether the direct and intended object of their transportation 
 4s to supply the enemy with them. To justify the capture, it 
 is enough that the immediate object of the voyage is to sup- 
 ply the enemy, and that the contraband property is certainly 
 
24 
 
 destined to his immediate use. TTliile it is true that goods 
 destined for the use of a neutral country can never be deemed 
 contraband, whatever be their character, and however well 
 adapted thej may be to the purposes of war, yet, if they are 
 destined for the direct use of the enemy's army or navy, they 
 are not exempt from forfeiture on the mere ground that they 
 are neutral property, and that the port of delivery is also neu- 
 tral. (1 Duer on Insurance, C30 ; The Commercen^ 1 'Whea- 
 ton, 388, 380.) 
 
 If the contraband cargo of the Stephen Hart had been des- 
 tined for the use of the fleet of the enemy, lying in the harbor 
 of Cardenas, there could be no doubt tliat it might lawfully 
 have been captured as prize of war on its way to Cardenas. 
 And, if the contraband cargo was really destined, when it left 
 its port of departure in England, for the use of the enemy in 
 the country of the enemy, and not for sale or consumption in 
 the neutral port, no principle of the law of nations, and no 
 consideration of the rights and interests of lawful neutral com- 
 merce, can require that the mere touching at the neutral port, 
 either for the purpose of making it a new point of departure 
 for the vessel to a port of the enemy, or for the purpose of 
 transliipping the contraband cargo into another vessel, which 
 may carry it to the destination which was intended for it wlien 
 it left its port of departure, should exempt the vessel or the 
 contraband cargo from capture as prize of war. If it was the 
 Intention of the owner of the Stephen Hart, or of the owners 
 of her cargo, having control of the movements of the vessel, 
 that she should simply touch at Cardenas, and should proceed 
 thence to Charleston, or some other port of the enemy, her 
 voyage was not a voyage prosecuted by a neutral vessel from 
 one neutral port to another neutral port, but a voyage which 
 was, at the time of her seizure, in course of prosecution to a 
 port of the enemy, although she had not as yet reached Car- 
 denas, and although her regular papers documented her for a 
 voyage from London to Cuba. Such a voyage was one be- 
 gun and carried on in violation of the belligerent rights of the 
 United States to blockade the ports of the enemy, and to pre- 
 
/3^ 
 
 "Jd 
 
 vent the introduction into those ports of arms and munitions 
 of war. The division of a continuous transportation of contra- 
 band goods into several intermediate transportations, by means 
 of intermediate voyages by different vessels carrying such 
 goods, cannot make a transportation which is, in fact, a unit, 
 to become several transportations, although, to effect the entire 
 transportation of the goods, requires several voyages by differ- 
 ent vessels, each of which may, in a certain sense and for cer- 
 tain purposes, be said to have its own voyage, and although 
 each of such voyages, except the last one in the circuit, may 
 be between neutral ports. Nov can such a transaction make 
 any of the parts of the entire transportation of the contraband 
 cargo a lawful transportation, when the transportation would 
 not have been lawful if it had not been thus divided. The 
 law seeks out the truth, and never, in any of its branches, 
 tolerates any such fiction as that under which it is sought to 
 shield the vessel and her cargo in the present case. If tlie 
 guilty intention, tiiat the contraband goods should reach a port 
 of the enemy, existed when such goods left their English port, 
 that guilty intention cannot be obliterated by the innocent 
 intention of stopping at a neutral port on the way. If there 
 be, in stopping at such port, no intention of transhipping the 
 cargo, and if it is to proceed to the enemy's country in the 
 same vessel in which it came from England, of course there 
 can be no purpose of lawful neutral commerce at the neutral 
 port, by the sale or use of the cargo in the market there ; and 
 the sole purpose of stopping at the neutral port must merely 
 be to have upon the papers of the vessel an ostensible neutral 
 terminus for the voyage. If, on the other hand, the object of 
 stopping at the neutral port be to tranship the cargo to another 
 vessel, to be transported to a port of the enemy, while the vessel 
 in which it was brought from England does not proceed to the 
 port of the enemy, there is equally an absence of all lawful 
 neutral commerce at the neutral port ; and the only commerce 
 carried on in the case is that of the transportation of the con- 
 traband cargo from the English port to the port of the enemy, 
 as was intended when it left the English port. This Court 
 
26 
 
 holds that, in all snch cases, the transportation or voyage of 
 the contraband goods is to be considered as a unit, from the 
 port of lading to the port of delivery in the enemy's country ; 
 that, if any part of such voyage or transportation be unlawful, 
 it is unlawful throughout ; and that the vessel and her cargo 
 are subject to capture, as well before aniving at the first neu- 
 tral port at which she touches after her departure from Eng- 
 land, as on the voyage or transportation by sea from such 
 neutral port to the port of the enemy. 
 
 These princij^les were laid down and applied by the District 
 Court for the Southern District of Florida, in the cases of the 
 Dolphin and the Pearly and the views of that Court are fully 
 adopted by this Court, and are to be regarded as a part of the 
 settled law governing prize tribunals. It is laid down in Hal- 
 leck on International Law^ {chapter 21, section 11, page 504-,) 
 that the ulterior destination of the goods determines the char- 
 acter of the trade, no matter how circuitous the route by which 
 they are to reach that destination ; that even where the ship 
 in which the goods are embarked is destined to a neutral port, 
 and the goods are there to be unladen, yet if they are to be 
 transported thence, whatever may be the mode of conveyance, 
 to an enemy's port or territory, they fall within the interdic- 
 tion and penalty of the law ; that the trade from an enemy's 
 country through a neutral port is likewise unlawful, and that 
 the goods so shipped through a neutral territory, even though 
 they may be unladen and transhipped, are liable to condem- 
 nation ; that it is an attempt to carry on trade with the enemy 
 by the circuitous route of a neutral port, and thus evade the 
 penalty of the law ; that the law will not countenance any 
 such attempt to violate its principles by a resort to the shelter 
 of neutral territory ; that any such voyage is illegal at its 
 inception ; and that the goods shipped are liable to seizure at 
 the instant it commences. The same doctrines are asserted in 
 1 KenCs Commentaries^ (i?«^^ 85, note «, 8M edition^) in 1 
 Duer on Insurance, {x^age 568, section 13,) and in Jecher v. 
 Montgomery, (18 Howard, 110, 115.) 
 
 The same principles are maintained by the English au- 
 
/c^7 
 
 27 
 
 thorities. In Wildman^s International Law, {vol. '^^page 20,) 
 it is asserted, that no exemption from the consequences of 
 sending goods to the enemy will be gained by sending them 
 through a neutral country ; that the interposition of a prior 
 port makes no difference ; that all trade with the enemy is 
 illegal ; that the circumstance that the goods are to go first to 
 a neutral port, will not make the trade lawful ; and that it is 
 not competent, during a war, for a British subject to send 
 goods to a neutral port, with a view of sending them forward, 
 on his own account, to an enemy's port, consigned by him to 
 persons there, as in the ordinary course of commerce. Tliese 
 principles were laid down by Sir William Scott, in The Jonge 
 Pietei\ (4 Ch. Bob. 79.) The particular doctrine thus asserted 
 had reference to the trading of British subjects with the enemy 
 of Great Britain. But the reason of the doctrine makes it 
 equally applicable to the case of a neutral attempting to send 
 contraband goods to an enemy of the United States through 
 the interposition of a prior neutral port. 
 
 In the case of The Richmond, (5 Ch. Rob. 290,) an Ameri- 
 can vessel was seized in the port of St. Helena, and proceeded 
 against as a prize, on the ground that she was going, under a 
 false destination, to the Isle of France, an enemy's port, with 
 contraband articles concealed on board, and with a view of 
 selling the vessel there, as a vessel well adapted for a shij) of 
 war, and for the service of privateering. Sir William Scott, 
 in his judgment in the case, says: "It is difficult not to con- 
 sider the Isle of France as the possible port of destination of 
 this vessel, according to the original intention. I say, as the 
 possiUe port, at least, if not the principal and absolute port of 
 destination of the original voyage. It cannot be denied that 
 an American ship might go to St. Helena, and from thence to 
 the Isle of France, or any other port of the enemy, provided 
 the cargo was of an innocent nature. If, on the contrary, it 
 was of a noxious character, the circumstance of merely touch- 
 ing at an English port would not alter the nature of a voyage 
 in itself illegal." He then comes to the conclusion, that the 
 vessel had on board articles contraband of war — pitch and tar 
 
28 
 
 — and holds that there are strong grounds to presume that the 
 original destination of those articles was absolutely to the Isle 
 of France. " But," he adds, " supposing that it was only of a 
 shifting nature, and that it was merely eventual, that^ in law, 
 would be quite sufficient, and that, at least, must be taken to 
 have been the design of the parties." " If the intention was 
 no more than this, ' I will go and sell pitch and tar at St. 
 Helena, if I can ; and, if I cannot, I will go with them to the 
 Isle of France, and sell them there,' that is an unlawful pur- 
 pose, and every step taken in the prosecution of such a design 
 is an unlawful act. The interposition of an English port 
 would not make it innocent." " The pitch and tar were going 
 with an original destination, either positive or eventual, to the 
 Isle of France." 
 
 In the case of The Maria, (5 Ch. Rob. 325,) Sir William 
 Scott says : " It is an inherent and settled principle, that the 
 mere touching at any port, without importing the cargo into 
 the common stock of the country, will not alter the nature of 
 the voyage, which continues the same in all respects, and must 
 be considered as a voyage to the country to which the vessel 
 is actually going, for the purpose of delivering her cargo at the 
 ultimate port." The doctrine here laid down is equallj^ ap- 
 plicable to the cargo, where it is carried to the ultimate port in a 
 different vessel from the one in which it is carried to the inter- 
 mediate port. 
 
 In the case of The 'William, (5 Ch, Boh. 3i9,) on appeal be- 
 fore the Lords Commissioners of Appeal in Prize Cases, Sir 
 William Grant, in delivering the judgment of tlie Court, says : 
 " ISTeitlier will it be contended, that the point from which the 
 commencement of a voyage is to be reckoned, changes as often 
 as the ship stops in the course of it; nor will it the more 
 change because a party may choose arbitrarily, by the ship's 
 papers or otherwise, to give the name of a distinct voyage to 
 each stage of a ship's progress. The act of shifting the cargo 
 from the ship to the shore, and from the shore back again into 
 the ship, does not necessarily amount to the termination of one 
 voyage and the commencement of another. It may be wholly 
 
/^r 
 
 29 
 
 imconnected with any purpose of importation into tlie place 
 where it is done. Supposing the landing to be merely for the 
 purjiose of airing or drying the goods, or of repairing the ship, 
 would any man think of describing the voyage as beginning 
 at the place where it happened to become necessary to go 
 through such a process ? Again, let it be supposed that the 
 j^arty has a motive for desiring to make the voyage appear to 
 begin at some other place than that of the original lading, and 
 that he therefore lands the cargo purely and solely for the 
 purpose of enabling himself to affirm that it was at such other 
 place that the goods were taken on board, would this con- 
 trivance at all alter the truth of the fact ? Would not the real 
 voyage still be from the place of the original shipment, not- 
 withstanding tlie attempt to give it the appearance of having 
 begun from a different place ? The truth may not always be 
 discernible ; but, when it is discovered, it is according to the 
 truth, and not according to the fiction, that we are to give to 
 the transaction its character and denomination. If the voyage 
 from the place of lading be not really ended, it matters not by 
 what acts the party may have evinced his desire of making it 
 appear to have been ended. That those acts have been 
 attended with trouble and expense, cannot alter their quality 
 or their eifect. The trouble and expense may weigh as cir- 
 cumstances of evidence to show the purpose for which the acts 
 were done ; but, if the evasive purpose be admitted or proved, 
 we can never be bound to accept, as a substitute for the ob- 
 servance of the law, the means, however operose, wdiich have 
 been employed to cover a breach of it. Between the actual 
 importation by which a voyage is really ended, and the colora- 
 ble importation which is to give it the appearance of being 
 ended, there must necessarily be a great resemblance." 
 
 The cases of The Nancy (3 Ch. Rob. 122) and The United 
 States, {Stewart^ s Adm. Eejp. 116,) were cases in which a voy- 
 age, consisting of different parts, was held to be not two voy- 
 ages, but one entire transaction, formed upon one original plan, 
 conducted by the same persons, and under one set of instruc- 
 tions ; and it was held that, in cases of contraband, especially 
 
30 
 
 ■when there is any thing of fraud or concealment, a return voy- 
 age is to be deemed connected with an outward voyage. 
 
 It is equally well settled, tliat the inception of the voyage 
 completes the offence ; that from the moment that the vessel, 
 with the contraband articles on board, quits her port on the 
 hostile destination, she may be legally captured ; that it is not 
 necessary to wait until the ship and goods are actually endeav- 
 oring to enter the enemy's port ; and that, the voyage being 
 illegal at its commencement, the penalty immediately attaches, 
 and continues to the end of tlie voyage, at least so long as the 
 illegality exists. {Ilalleck on International Law, chapter 24, 
 section 7, 2^'^9^ ^^^^ 5 Wildman's International Law^ vol. 2, 
 page 218; 1 Duer on Insurance^ G26, section 7.) The same 
 doctrine is laid down by Sir William Scott, in The Imhia, 
 (3 Ch. Rob. 16T,) and in "The Trende Sostre, (G Ch. Boh. 390, 
 note.) In The Columbia.^ (1 Ch. Rob. 15-4,) Sir William Scott 
 says, that the sailing, wath an intention of evading a blockade, 
 is beginning to execute that intention, and is an overt act con- 
 stituting the offence, and that from that moment the blockade 
 is fraudulently invaded. The same view is maintahied by 
 him in The Neptunus, (2 Ch. Rob. 110.) 
 
 Such being the well-settled principles of public law in ref- 
 erence to the carriage of contraband goods to the enemy, it 
 only remains to be seen whether the Stephen Hart and her 
 cargo are liable to condemnation according to those princi- 
 ples. If she was, in fact, a neutral vessel, and if her cargo, 
 although contraband of war, was being carried from an Eng- 
 lish port to Cardenas, for the general purposes of trade and 
 commerce at Cardenas, and for use or sale at Cardenas, with- 
 out any actual destination of the cargo, prior to the time of 
 the capture, to the use and aid of the enemy, then most cer- 
 tainly both the vessel and her cargo were free from liability to 
 capture. 
 
 The Stephen Hart was laden with a cargo composed exclu- 
 sively of arms, munitions of war and military equipments. It 
 is urged, 'on the part of the claimants, that the vessel was a 
 neutral carrier of the products of her own country, and of the 
 
31 
 
 property of neutral merchants, from one neutral port to another. 
 A strong appeal has been made to the Court not to permit the 
 United States, as a belligerent, to stop the manufiictures and 
 commerce of all other nations, or to dictate the mode in which 
 their trade shall be carried on. It is said that a peaceful neu- 
 tral may quicken bis industry and his commerce, and multiply 
 liis gains, by the high prices caused by the demands of those 
 belh'gerents who have exchanged the character of producers 
 for that of consumers and destroyers; that British merchants 
 may lawfully seek to supply the quickened demand at the 
 new price, or become the carriers for those whose ships are 
 exposed to capture ; that if, for any reason, they may not sell 
 to the enemy of the United States directly, then they may sell 
 to others who may sell to him ; that if they are unwilling to 
 run the blockade, they may sell to those who are willing to 
 take the risk ; that if they may not sell to Charleston, they 
 may sell to Cardenas, without troubling themselves with the 
 question, whether Cardenas will sell freely to those who may 
 come from Charleston to buy ; and that the national wealth 
 of the United States has been largely increased, during the 
 warfare of other nations, by the employment of its citizens as 
 neutral carriers in just such lawful commerce. But a neutral 
 merchant ought not to forget, that the duties which the law 
 of nations imposes on him flow from the same principle which 
 ought to control the action of his Government as a neutral 
 Government ; that where he supplies to the enemy of a bel- 
 ligerent munitions or other articles contraband of war, or 
 relieves, with provisions or otherwise, a blockaded port, he 
 makes himself personally a party to a war, in which, as a neu- 
 tral, he has no right to engage ; that, under such circumstances, 
 his property is justly treated as the property of an enemy; 
 and that the observance of those rules which the law of nations 
 prescribes for his conduct, is a high moral duty. (I Duer on 
 Insurance, 754, 755, section 24.) 
 
 It is contended, on the part of the libellants, that the voyage 
 of the /Stephen Hart was originated and prosecuted with the 
 illicit purpose of conveying to the enemy articles contraband 
 
32 
 
 of war, and of violating the blockade of a port of the enemy. 
 It will conduce to a better understanding of the case to trace 
 the previous history of the vessel, so far as we learn it from 
 the evidence. She was built in the United States, and had 
 been previously called the Tamauli])as. At the time the war 
 broke out, she was owned in llTew-Orleans, which place she 
 left in June, 1861, while that port was under blockade, al- 
 though she was allowed to proceed on her voyage after her 
 papers had been examined by a blockading vessel. Before 
 she left New-Orleans, and while that port was a port of the en- 
 emy, and was under blockade, she was sold there, about May, 
 1861, to an English owner residing there. Chadwick testifies 
 to this. He also says, that he understood that this English 
 owner, a person named Allen, gave a power of attorney to 
 Captain Ackley, the then master of the vessel, who was in the 
 employ of Allen, and who took the vessel to Cuba and thence 
 to England, authorizing him to sell her ; and that she was sold 
 in England to the claimant, Harris. All this appears upon 
 the first examination of Chadwick. But no bill of sale of the 
 vessel is produced either to Allen or to Harris ; and there is 
 no mention any where of the existence of any, not even in the 
 test oath of Harris. ISTor is there any proof of tiie payment of 
 any consideration on either sale, other than hearsay evidence 
 and the test oath of Harris. All the knowledge that Chad- 
 wick has on the subject of the sale to Harris is, {Ints. 14, 
 37,) that Captain Ackley, the former master of the vessel, told 
 him that he had sold the vessel to Harris for £2,000, and had 
 got ills money, or the drafts for it. Captain Dyett says, {Int. 
 14,) that tiie only way he knows that Harris is the owner, is 
 by seeing his name in the register as owner. Neither Captain 
 Dyett nor Chadwick {Int. 15) know any thing about any bill 
 of sale of the vessel. Although, in the certificate of registry, 
 which is dated at Liverpool, October loth, 18G1, Harris is 
 named as the owner, yet it is expressly stated in the certificate 
 that that paper is not a document of title. Captain Dyett 
 says, {Int. 7,) that he was appointed to the command of the 
 vessel on the 15th of November, 1861, ho tiiinks, which was 
 
/M// 
 
 33 
 
 four days before she was cleared at the custom-house in Lon- 
 don ; that he was appointed to such command by Messrs. 
 Isaac, Campbell & Co., of London ; and that Mr. Saul Isaac, 
 of that firm, delivered the vessel to him. Ko charter-party, 
 chartering the vessel to the owners of the cargo, was found on 
 board. Captain Dyett says, {Int. 19,) that there was no charter- 
 party for the voyage, and Chadwick says, {Int. 19,) that he 
 does not know of any charter-party. The only evidence of 
 any payment by Harris for the vessel is his test oath to his 
 claim. But, in that test oath he does not state to whom he 
 paid the purchase money, nor does he stale that any bill of 
 sale of the vessel was delivered to him, nor is the power of 
 attorney from Allen, under which the sale is alleged to have 
 been made by Captain Ackley, produced, or its absence ac- 
 counted for. 
 
 In the case of The Christine, (I Spi7ih, 82,) during the 
 recent war between England and Russia, where a vessel was 
 claimed by one Schwartz, her master, as a citizen of Lnbeck, 
 and a neutral owner, he alleged that he had purchased her, 
 just before the commencement of the war, from her Russian 
 owners. Dr. Lushington says, in delivering the judgment of 
 the Court, after noting the fact that the master had been mas- 
 ter of the vessel, under Russian colors, for eight months before 
 the time of the alleged purchase: "'This contract is a very 
 suspicious one, not only on the ground that it was immediately 
 antecedent to the war, but also on the ground that it was a 
 purchase, by tiie master." " A party coming forward under 
 such circumstances, and claiming the ship in a neutral charac- 
 ter, is bound not only to produce, but to have on board, suffi- 
 cient documents to satisfy the Court that he possesses a ho7ia 
 fide title. I do not say that the Court would l)ind him down 
 to the production, in the first instance, of all the papers which 
 it might ultimately deem necessary to induce it to pronounce 
 for a restitution ; but I do say, that it ought to be a contract 
 of that nature in itself, supported by such documents found on 
 board, as would give the Court good reason to suppose that, if 
 the opportunity of producing further proof were allowed, it 
 
 3 
 
34 
 
 would give bim a title to restitution ; otherwise, further proof 
 is a inockery." " There must be proof of payment in all cases 
 where any suspicion arises as to the validity of the contract 
 at the time of sale. It is quite vain to say, ' mine is a hona 
 fide valid contract.' The money must have been paid before 
 the master assumes the command, or ventures out on the high 
 seas during war; otherwise, the ship would be liable to be con- 
 demned." "The title on which the master claims — the bill 
 of sale — is not here. ISTow, this may be a hona fide claim. I 
 do not decide whether it is or not, but I decide that it is not 
 legal, according to the usage and practice of the Court, and 
 the laws which regulate the Court in matters of prize. If this 
 important paper, which is the sole title-deed, is not produced, 
 what satisfaction can the Court have? The title-deed to the 
 ship should be on board of the ship. If further proof were 
 allowed in this particular case, could the Court feel satisfied 
 that it would receive a genuine document? The case is teem- 
 ing with suspicion throughout. Is there any one document 
 whatever produced, that can satisfy the Court that the transac- 
 tion was hona fide., independently of all the circumstances I 
 have mentioned? Certainly there is one document." That 
 document was a certificate, showing that a ship's clearer 
 appeared at Lubeck, and swore that he was lawfully au- 
 thorized by the claimant, by power of attorney, and that the 
 vessel commanded by the claimantsolely and hona fide belonged 
 to him. Dr. Lushington proceeds: " So tliat this gentleman 
 makes oath, by virtue of a power of attorney from Captain 
 Schwartz, which power of attorney is not produced. I have 
 simply this document, which in no degree corroborates the 
 claim." lie tiien adds, that in a case where the question in 
 dispute is the hona fides of the sale, it has always been held 
 that proof of actual payment was essential, and decides that 
 he cannot allow further proof in the case, and that the vessel 
 must be condemned. 
 
 In the case of The Sisters, (5 Ch. Boh. 138,) Sir AVilliam 
 Scott says : " A bill of sale is the proper title to wiiich the 
 maritime Courts of all countries w^ould look. It is the univer- 
 
/4^/ 
 
 35 
 
 Bal instrument of transfer of ships, in the usage of all maritime 
 countries, and in no degree a peculiar title-deed or convey- 
 ance, known only to the law of England. It is what the mari- 
 time law expects, and what the Court of Admiralty would, in 
 its ordinary practice, always require." 
 
 As the StejpKen Hart was built in the United States, she 
 must, on the evidence, be held to have belonged, at the com- 
 mencement of the war, to a citizen of New-Orleans, and her 
 transfer, after the blockade was establisiied, to a British sub- 
 ject, a resident of New-Orleans, not being in any manner 
 proved by competent evidence, she was still, in judgment of 
 law, enemy's property, and liable to capture as such. But, in 
 addition to this, even if it were shown that she had, in fact, 
 been legally transferred to Allen, a British subject, residing in 
 New-Orleans, yet, as the domicil of Allen was in the country 
 of the enemy at the time of tiie transfer, his status follows the 
 character of that country in war, and the law of nations pro- 
 nounces him an enemy. {The Pizarro^ 3 Wheaton^ 227 ; Opin- 
 ion of the Supreme Court U. S. in the Prise Cases^ hy Grier, «/!, 
 December Term^ 1862, 11 Avfi. Law Reg., 334.) Moreover, the 
 transfer by Allen to Harris, even if that were sufficiently 
 proved, having been made under a power of attorney, must, 
 in judgment of law, be regarded as having been made at 
 New-Orleans, by Allen, a resident of New-Orleans, and as of 
 the time when the power of attorney was given, and thus, as 
 having been made in a blockaded port of the enemy, in time 
 of war, by a British resident there, and as leaving the vessel 
 equally liable to capture as enemy's property. {The General 
 Hamilton, 6 Ch. Rob. 61 ; The Two Brothers, 1 Ch. Rob. 131.) 
 
 There is, therefore, abundant ground for condemning the 
 vessel, irrespective of any of the reasons connected with the 
 traffic in which she was engaged at the time of her capture. 
 
 The cargo of the vessel, composed of arms, munitions of war 
 and military equipments, is claimed as the sole property of S. 
 Isaac, Campbell & Co., of London, who appear to be dealers 
 in military goods. It is alleged by the claimants of the vessel 
 and cargo, that the real destination of the vessel and cargo 
 
36 
 
 was Cardenas, iu the Island of Cuba. But, it is to be noted, 
 that the shipping articles specify the voyage as a voyage from 
 London to Cuha^ (Cuba generall}', not Cardenas or any other 
 port in Cuba,) and Sierra Leone, "and any port — ports on 
 coast of Africa, ^ North ~ South America ^~ West Indies, 
 and back to a final port of discharge in the United Kingdom/' 
 All the other official papers found on board of the vessel, such 
 as the receipt for the Dover harbor duties, the certificate of 
 the shipping-master for the clearance, the receipt for light 
 duties at London, the receipt for harbor duties at Ramsgate, 
 the certificate from the searcher's office of the London cus- 
 tom-house, and the victualling bill, speak of the voyage as 
 one from London to Cuba. The telegraphic despatch of the 
 23d of ^November, 1861, from S. Isaac, Campbell & Co., to 
 Lloyd's agent at Deal, speaks of the schooner as bound for 
 Cardenas. The title-page of the ordinary log-book speaks of 
 the voyage as one from London to Cardenas, Cuba. The label 
 on the outside of that log-book has the blank for the place at 
 which the voyage commenced filled up with the words, " Lon- 
 don, England," but the blank for the place of destination is not 
 filled up at all. The blanks at the tops of the pages of that log- 
 book are only filled up on one page, although sixty-two pages of 
 that log-book are occupied with entries of the progress of the 
 voyage from the 19th of November, 1861, to and including 
 noon of the 2Tth of January, 1862. The page referred to has, 
 at the top, the voyage entered, as " from London towards 
 CwJa." On the first page of that log-book, under date of 
 November 19th, 1861, there is an entry that the pilot " took 
 charge of the schooner Stephen Hart on a voyage to Ciiba.''^ 
 Tiie title-page of the official log-book speaks of the voyage 
 as being one to " Cuba and Sierra Leone." None of the let- 
 ters found on board are addressed to any person at Cardenas. 
 But there was found on board a letter from Saul Isaac to Mr. 
 Crawford, the British ConsulGeneral at Havana, asking his 
 "assistance and advice for Captain Dyett, of the schooner 
 Stephen llart^ should he need it during his stay at Ilavan- 
 nah." 
 
 The letter of instructions to Captain Dyetl from S. Isaac, 
 
/^i^ 
 
 37 
 
 Campbell & Co., produced by Captain Djett on his exami- 
 nation, directs him to proceed "to Cardenas, Cuba," and 
 to report, on his arrival there, " to Charles J. Helm, Esq're, 
 to whom jou will consign yourself and vessel, and from whom 
 you will receive all orders for your future actions with refer- 
 ence to the schooner and cargo, and you will be pleased to 
 implicitly obey all orders given by Charles J. Helm, Esq're. 
 * * * * Mr. Helm may require the schooner for use, 
 at Havannah. Should he do so, you will, at once, make the 
 best arrangements for the immediate return to England of 
 yourself and crew. Should, however, any one wish to remain 
 in the employ of Mr. Helm, we have no objection to his do- 
 ing so. In case Mr. Helm has no use for the vessel, after dis- 
 charging the cargo, you will receive full instructions from 
 Messrs. Isaac, Campbell & Co., by mail leaving this on the 
 2d proximo, for proceeding to the West Coast of Africa." 
 The letter then directs Captain Dyett to deliver, without 
 delay, on his arrival, the letters which he has for Mr. 
 Helm and Mr. Crawford, and, also, immediately on his arri- 
 val at Cardenas, to telegraph " to Cahuzac Brothers, Ha- 
 vannah, who will, on receipt of message, communicate with 
 you." The letter to Mr. Helm, thus referred to, was also 
 produced by Captain Dyett on his examination, and is from 
 Saul Isaac, and is addressed " Charles J. Helm, Esq're, care 
 of J. Crawford, Esq're, Havannah." It says: "The bearer 
 of this is Captain Dyett, of the schooner Stephen Hart, for 
 whom I ask the favor of your good offices. Should he require 
 assistance or advice during his stay at Havannah, he will 
 hand you his instructions from my house to read, and I feel 
 assured that you will in all matters find him a good man." 
 It is very manifest, from these documents, that Mr. Helm, 
 Mr. Crawford, and Cahuzac Brothers, the only parties named 
 as having any concern in Cuba with the vessel or her cargo, 
 were all of them to be found at Havana, and none of them at 
 Cardenas, and that no person in Cardenas was consignee 
 either of the vessel or the cargo; that it was contemplated 
 that the vessel should go to Havana, if Mr. Helm required 
 it, and be given up for use to Mr. Helm, at Havana, if he 
 
38 
 
 required it; that Captain Dyett was to obey the orders of 
 Helm in all his actions with reference to the vessel and her 
 cargo ; that Captain Djett and his crew were authorized to 
 remain in the employ of Mr. Helm, if any of them desired 
 to do so; and that Mr. Helm was to have the control of the 
 discharging of the cai'go of the vessel, and the right to 
 use the vessel after the cargo was discharged. It is also to 
 be noted, that these instructions to Captain Dyett were not 
 from Harris, the alleged owner of the vessel, but were from 
 S. Isaac, Campbell & Co., who claim to be the owners of the 
 whole of her cargo. No instructions whatever from Harris 
 to Captain Dyett were found on board, nor is it pretended 
 that he had any from Harris. Harris appears to have given 
 up the entire control of the" vessel and of her movements to S. 
 Isaac, Campbell & Co. ; and, for these reasons, independently 
 of all other considerations, the owner of the vessel must be 
 held to have involved her in any illegality of which S. Isaac, 
 Campbell & Co. or Captain Dyett have been guilty in respect 
 to the cargo of the vessel, especially in view of the facts which 
 Captain Dyett states, that he was put in command of the ves- 
 sel by that firm, and tiiat there was no charter-party for the 
 voyage. {Jackson v. Montgomery^ 18 Howard, 110, 119.) 
 
 The conclusion is irresistible, from the contents of tiie three 
 letters referred to, that there was no intention whatever of 
 discharging the cargo of the vessel at Cardenas ; and that, if 
 discharged at all in Cuba, it was to be discharged at Havana. 
 As no manifest, bills of lading or invoices, or any other papers, 
 (except the letter of instructions to Captain Dyett,) giving 
 any information as to the character of the cargo, or its owners, 
 or its consignees, were found on board of the vessel, the con- 
 viction is forced on the mind that the cargo had a single 
 ownership and a single destination ; that that ownership was 
 one represented by Mr. Helm as its agent ; and that that des- 
 tination was to the place where his principals resided, and 
 where they would derive the most benefit from the cargo. 
 
 Who was Charles J. Helm ? Captain Dyett {Int. IC) calls 
 liim " Major Helm," and says that [he resides in Havana. 
 
/^^ 
 
 39 
 
 Chadwick, on his second examination, says {Int. 11) that 
 Helm was the agent for the " Confederate States," in Cuba. 
 This being so, it may very well be inferred that this cargo of 
 arras and munitions of war was destined to be carried into the 
 enemy's country, as we find the vessel and her cargo placed, 
 by the orders of S. Isaac, Campbell & Co., within the entire 
 control and subject to the orders of Helm. But, independently 
 of this, the evidence is irresistible, that the cargo was destined 
 for the enemy's country. 
 
 The test oaths, both of Harris and of Samuel Isaac, when 
 examined carefully, fall far short of a frank and clear state- 
 ment of an innocent destination for the vessel and cargo. The 
 test oath of Harris says, that the true and only destination of 
 the vessel, with the cargo^ was Cardenas, " where the same was 
 to be delivered." This oath would be satisfied by a delivery of 
 the cargo in bulk at Cardenas to Helm, and its transhipment 
 there to another vessel, to be carried to a port of the enemy, 
 in pursuance of such an original destination. It does not 
 state that the destination of the cargo was not to a port of the 
 enemy. And it states, in very suspicious language, that it 
 was not intended that the vessel should enter, or attempt to 
 enter, any port of the United States, but it does not state that 
 it was not intended that the vessel or her cargo should enter, 
 or attempt to enter, any port of the enemy of the United 
 States, or any port blockaded by the naval forces of the United 
 States. In all these particulars, the test oath of Samuel Isaac 
 to the claim for the cargo holds the same suspicious language, 
 and is wanting in the same averments. The Court searches 
 in vain through these test oaths to find those full and honest 
 allegations which should characterize the test oath to a claim 
 made by a neutral really engaged in lawful and innocent com- 
 merce. 
 
 I shall now review the evidence in the case, in order to see 
 to what conclusion it leads. Captain Dyett says, (/n^. 4,) that 
 lie does not remember seeing any '' Southern flag" on board of 
 his vessel, although he says, that if the " Southern flag" were put 
 before him, he should not know it. He admits, however, that 
 
40 
 
 besides the English colors, under which the vessel sailed, and 
 the American flag, " that is, the stars and stripes," there were 
 other flags in the vessel's bag. Chadwick says, {Int. 4,) that 
 they had the "Confederate" flag on board, and cut up the 
 American flag to make a burgee of it. A " burgee" is defined 
 by lexicographers to be "a distinguishing flag or pennant." 
 Leisk says, {Int. 4,) that the vessel had an American flag on 
 board, and another flag that looked similar to the American 
 flag. JSTellman says, {Int. 4,) that she had the American en- 
 sign, which was cut up on the voyage to make a burgee of, 
 and also " a flag of the Confederate States of America ;" that 
 he saw that flag a few days before the capture, in the sail 
 cabin, in a bag with the burgee ; and that, on the day of the 
 capture, he found the burgee on the floor in the main cabin, 
 and made thorough search for " the Confederate flag," but 
 could not find it. Allan says, {Int. 4,) that they had the 
 American colors on board, and another flag with stars and 
 stripes, " but not as many stars as the old American flag;" 
 and that he does not know whether that was the " Confederate 
 flag" or not, as he never saw one to know it, unless that was 
 one. Chadwick, on his re-examination, {Int. 39,) says, that 
 after the capture of the vessel, and while the captors were in 
 charge, he took this " Confederate flag" from where it was 
 hid in his clothes bag, and threw it overboard ; and that this flag 
 was intended to be displayed in connection with a peculiar 
 one, called the "Isle of Man's flag," or signal, "which was 
 adopted by the Southern States as a signal for a friendly ves- 
 sel wishing to enter, and which should be protected, as far as 
 possible, by them." This signal flag was probably the burgee 
 of which the witnesses speak. 
 
 Captain Dyett says, {Int. 3,) that the schooner was captured 
 about eighty-two miles from Point de Yeacos, in Cuba. 
 Chadwick says, {Int. 3,) that the capture took place between 
 Cuba and Key "West, near the coast of Florida. Nellman 
 and Allan say, {Int. 3,) that the capture took place about 
 thirty miles from Key West. Captain Dyett says, {Int. 
 10,) that the capture took place about twenty -five miles from 
 
/¥^ 
 
 41 
 
 Key West, and {Int. 36) about eightj-two miles from Car- 
 denas. 
 
 . Captain Dyett says, {Jni. 11,) that the vessel was bound for 
 Cardenas ; that the contents of -her cargo were unknown 
 to him, except that he saw some cases marked " long En- 
 field," which he supposed contained " long Enfield guns," 
 and he thinks he saw a few bales, marked " socks;" and that 
 at Erith, below London, on the Thames, some packages were 
 taken in stamped " ball cartridges ;" but, he says, " she had 
 no goods on board which were contraband of war, or other- 
 wise prohibited by law." He also says, {Int., 39,) that he can- 
 not state any thing further in regard to the real and true 
 property and destination of the vessel and cargo, except that, 
 after he had discharged his cargo, he was to proceed to Sierra 
 Leone, as stated in his letter of instructions. Chadwick, on 
 his first examination, {Int. 11,) says that they were bound to 
 Cardenas ; that the cargo consisted of powder and muni- 
 tions of war ; that {Int. 39) he understood from the Cap- 
 tain and the shipping articles that they were bound to Car- 
 denas, and from there to Sierra Leone ; and that he knows 
 nothing beyond that. Leisk says, {Int. 11,) that the vessel was 
 bound to Cardenas and Sierra Leone ; that he knew that 
 her cargo, consisting of arms, powder and soldiers' equip- 
 ments, was contraband of war; and {Int. 39) that he knows 
 nothing about the destination of the vessel and cargo, except 
 that they were bound to Cardenas. JSTellman says, {Int. 11,) 
 that the vessel was bound to Cuba, Sierra Leone or the West 
 Indies, or some port in North or South America; and that he 
 does not know to which of those several ports or places they 
 were bound first. In this particular, he confirms the very am- 
 biguous and alternative language in the shipping articles. 
 He also says, {Int. 11,) that the cargo consisted of Enfield 
 rifles, powder, cartridges, shot, shells, soldiers' accoutrements, 
 such as knapsacks, belts and pouches, and some heavy boxes, 
 which he thinks contained small cannon ; and that the lading 
 consisted entirely of warlike stores and articles. He thus 
 manifests a knowledge of the cargo, which is in striking con- 
 
42 
 
 trast witli Captain Djett's ignorance. Nellman says, {Int. 11,) 
 that he thinks that these goods are contraband of war. Cap- 
 tain Djett, however, {Int. 11,) saj's, that Enfield rifles and 
 ball cartridges are not contraband of war. Allan says, {Int. 
 11,) that the vessel was bound to Cuba; and that the captain 
 said he was going to Cardenas, and from there to the coast of 
 Africa. As to the cargo, Allan says, {Int. 11,) that he had 
 seen boxes marked " long Enfields," which he took to be 
 guns, and had heard there was powder, and had seen bales of 
 blankets and other military equipments, and believes that she 
 had a general cargo of arms and munitions of war. 
 
 Captain Dyett says, {Int. 14,) that he does not know who 
 owns the cargo, but his impression is that it belongs to Isaac, 
 Campbell & Co.; that {Int. 16) he does not know who were 
 the laders of the cargo, or for whose risk and account the goods 
 were, or what interest Major Helm had in them ; and that he 
 does not know to whom they would belong, if restored and 
 delivered at their destined port. Chadwick says, {Int. 14,) that 
 he heard in London that Isaac, Campbell & Co. owned the 
 cargo. Kellman says, {Int. 14,) that he believes the cargo is 
 owned " in the Confederate States of America ;" that he heard 
 Chadwick say so ; that he never heard any thing further con- 
 cerning the cargo and its owners, except that Mr. Chadwick 
 told him that the cargo was going to some place in " the Con- 
 federate States," and professed to know all about it. He also 
 says, {Int. 16,) that Mr. Hughes, who he believes is an agent 
 for "the Confederate States," put the cargo on board, and was 
 the lader thereof, and seemed to be the principal man, and had 
 the most to say about the vessel and cargo ; that the goods 
 were to be delivered in the Southern States, at some port 
 therein, and he tiiinks for the account or benefit of some per- 
 son in those States ; and that he believes, from what he heard 
 on board the vessel, that the cargo was destined for some port 
 in the Southern States,either to be carried there in that vessel, 
 or to be transhipped and put in another vessel for the same 
 purpose. He also says, {Int. 24,) that he thinks that the vessel 
 was in reality bound for Cuba, and that, after arriving there. 
 
/^s 
 
 43 
 
 she would have received instructions as to what particular 
 port or place she should go to in the Southern States, or as to 
 whether the cargo should be transhipped and put on board 
 another vessel ; and that Chadvvick told liim that a steamer 
 would receive the cargo at Cuba very probably, and would 
 carry it thence to some Southern port. 
 
 Captain Dyett says, {Int. 17,) that he signed four bills of lad- 
 ing for the cargo, which were prepared by the broker and laid 
 before him to sign ; that he signed them without reading them, 
 and does not know their contents ; and that he had no bill 
 of lading on board when he sailed, or at any time before his 
 capture. He also says, {Int. 31,) that he signed a manifest 
 before the Collector of London, and left it at the office of the 
 brokers, Speyer & Haywood, in London, and has not seen it 
 since ; that the manifest was in the usual form, and made from 
 the bills of lading; and {Int. 17) that the bills of lading and 
 manifest were to be forwarded to him at Cardenas. He also 
 says, (//iz5. 18,) that there were no invoices on board of the vessel. 
 
 Captain Dyett, on the capture of the vessel, did not give up 
 to the prize-master the letter of instructions from S. Isaac, 
 Campbell & Co. to him, or the letter from Saul Isaac to Charles 
 J. Helm, of November 19th, 1861. He only produced them 
 on his examination in preparatorno, after his arrival at New- 
 York, in answer to the searching inquiries of the standing 
 interrogatories. He says, {Int. 20,) that he did not give up 
 those letters to the prize-master, because he did not know that 
 he was bound to give them up. Yet he says, {Int. 18,) that he 
 gave to the prize-master his ship's log-book, his official log- 
 book, and his desk, with all the papers therein, being his pri- 
 vate papers and in no way relating to the vessel ; and, among 
 the papers which he so gave up, is found the comparatively 
 unimportant letter from Saul Isaac to the British Consul at 
 Havana, and the telegraphic despatches and official papers of 
 the vessel, which were calculated, on their face, to show a fair 
 and honest voyage from London to Cuba. The two letters 
 which he did withhold, namely, the instructions to himself 
 and the letter to Helm, were the only documents on board 
 
44 
 
 which in any way connect Mr. Helm with this vessel and her 
 cargo. This withholding or temporary suppression of those 
 two letters, whose character and contents I have already com- 
 mented upon, is one of those circumstances which is always 
 regarded with suspicion, particularly where the suppression is 
 made by a master. I shall have occasion to refer to this point 
 hereafter, in connection with the attempted suppression of 
 important papers by Chad wick. That the suppression of these 
 letters by Captain Dyett was premeditated, is shown by the 
 testimony of Nellman, who says, {Int. 18,) that Captain Dyett 
 had a letter with him directed to some one, and that he heard 
 him and Cbadwick talk about it an hour or so before the cap- 
 ture, just when the capturing vessel was firing her first shot. 
 
 Chadwick says, {Int. 18,) that he had some private letters 
 from his wife and friends, which he gave to Leisk, the cook, to 
 take care of, and that Leisk gave them up to some of the cap- 
 turing officers. Leisk says, {Int. 32,) that he had some papers 
 belonging to Chadwick which he, Leisk, put into a tea-pot, 
 where they were found by the searching officer; ;uid that they 
 were put there by the orders of Chadwick, to keep them out of 
 sight. Nellman says, {l7it. 20,) that Chadwick, a few minutes 
 before the capture, gave some papers to Leisk, with directions 
 to put them into a tea-pot in the galley, for the purpose of con- 
 cealing them, but that they were found by the United States 
 officers. Allan says, {Inf. 12,) that he saw a bunch of papers 
 taken out of the tea-pot by the boarding officer, and that, when 
 they were found, the officer asked Leisk what they were, and 
 Leisk said he thought it was tea. 
 
 On his re-examination {Int. 32) Leisk says, that some papers 
 were given to him by Captain Dyett on the evening of the 
 day they were captured, which Captain Dyett had put at the 
 foot of his berth. Leisk says : " lie told me, if he sent for these 
 papers, I should know wiiere to find them. He then went on 
 board the Supply. When he returned, I asked him if he 
 wanted those papers. He said he had already got them. This 
 conversation was between us, there being no other person 
 within hearing. We were in his state-room at the time, with 
 
/^^ 
 
 45 
 
 the door closed." We have no explanation from any witness 
 as to what those papers were. As to the papers which Leisk 
 received from Chadwick and put into the tea-pot, where they 
 were found by the boarding officer, Leisk says, on his re- 
 examination : " "When the first officer handed me those papers, 
 he seemed anxious and uneasy, and, when he returned to the 
 schooner to get his clothes, the first thing he said to me was, 
 ' Have you got those papers V I told him they were found by 
 the officer. He then said, ' Why in hell did you not destroy 
 them V And likewise, ' By God, I am done V " 
 
 Three of the papers which were concealed in the tea-pot, 
 and which Chadwick speaks of as private letters, are letters to 
 Chadwick containing some very important matter. One of 
 them is dated at Bristol, England, October 29th, 1861, and is 
 addressed to Chadwick by a person who signs himself " R. 
 H. Leonard, ship Alexander, Confederate States." Leonard 
 expresses his pleasure that he is able to furnish Chadwick 
 with " the book required," without price. He refers to it as 
 a book which Chadwick had written for, says that it belongs 
 to him, Leonard, and that, if it were worth ^50, he would wil- 
 lingly give it to an enterprise of Chadwick's, and hopes it may 
 be of valuable service to him. This book is the copy of the 
 United States Coast Survey, that was found on board of the ves- 
 sel, containing charts, as has been seen, for entering very many 
 of the blockaded ports of the enemy. In his testimony, given 
 on his re-examination, Chadwick refers particularly to this 
 book of charts as one which he recommended to his employers 
 to purchase, and which they told him to purchase at any price. 
 He says that he obtained one, which was presented to him by 
 " R. H. Leonard, the mate of the ship Alexander, then lying 
 in Bristol." Those employers, Chadwick states, in his deposi- 
 tion on re-examination, to have been Mr. Hughes, " the Com- 
 mercial Confederate Agent for purchasing arms and ammuni- 
 tion for, and shipping the same to, the Confederate States," 
 "William L.Yancey, of the United States," a South Carolina 
 captain, named Connor, and Mr. Saul Isaac. 
 
 In the same letter, Leonard says : " Captain Johnson will 
 
46 
 
 mark out the chart; also the route, with some information; 
 also write a letter, which he will wish you to deliver or forward. 
 Mrs. Bain will also have a letter for you to take, and forward 
 to Yirginia, if you arrive safe. I bope you may be successful. 
 If so, report the old Alexander laying up at Bristol, with the 
 palmetto tree constantly flying, and that her captain and offi- 
 cers are ready to aid the South in any enterprise. Tommy, I 
 will not ask you to disclose the secret of your voyage. Be 
 whatever it may, I believe it is true to the South. My heart 
 and well wishes are with you, hoping you may be successful, 
 and I may hear of the consequences. If that book prove ser- 
 viceable to you,^it will aftbrd me more pleasure than its weight 
 in gold in return. * -3^ * * I shall send the book by ex- 
 press this evening. I wish you to write me two or three mails 
 before you put to sea, as Mrs. Bain will have some other let- 
 ters to send. If you should fail, destroy." 
 
 Ciiadwick, on his re-examination, states that he received a 
 letter from Captain Johnson, of the ship Naomi, of Charleston, 
 S. C, giving him a description of the entrance to Charleston, 
 and also received from him letters for his wife, and for other 
 persons residing in the "Confederate States." In confirma- 
 tion of this, we find that another of the three letters, being one 
 dated at Bristol, England, October 29tli, 1861, and signed 
 " John Johnson, ship Naomi," and addressed to " Mr. Benja- 
 min H. Ciiadwick, schooner Stephen Hart, Surrey Canal, Lon- 
 don," says : " Mr. Leonard, chief officer of the ship Alexander, 
 and I had some private conversation this morning concerning 
 some things^ which I need not now repeat." Johnson then 
 proceeds to give specific directions as to the mode of entering 
 the harbor of Charleston, and adds : " The chart of Charleston 
 harbor, in the book called the IT, S. Coast Survey, will be 
 your best guide." He also says : " Enclosed is a letter, and I 
 beg that you will, in case you succeed in safely reaching any 
 Southern port, forward the same to its destination. At the 
 same time, do not let its encumbrance in any way interfere 
 with your enterprise. Destroy it, if need be ; but, if it could 
 be managed to forward it safe to my wife, I should feel very 
 
47 
 
 grate'ful towards you for your kindness. I Lope and trust 
 that you will succeed in your undertaking. Observe secrecy, 
 by all means, and I can assure you that no information as 
 regards the Stephen Hart's whereabouts or movements, shall 
 be gained from me by any one here or elsewhere. * * ^ 
 May the God of Justice guide you in safety to your port of 
 destination is the fervent wish of one who loves the South, its 
 institutions and its people." 
 
 The remaining one of the three letters is from Leonard, and 
 is addressed "To Mr. B. H. Chadwick, alias Tommy, 1st 
 officer, Stephen Hart," and is written at Bristol, England, but 
 without date. It says, among other things, " Give me the par- 
 ticulars of your voyage, what your cargo consists of, and if you 
 have got any guns on board." 
 
 ^ Tiie suppression by Captain Dyett, until his examination 
 in preparatorio, of the letter of instructions to him from S. 
 Isaac, Campbell & Co., and of the letter from Saul Isaac to 
 Helm, and the attempt by Chadwick to conceal the letters 
 from Leonard and Captain Johnson, are circumstances of great 
 importance, as tending to show the illicit and fraudulent char- 
 acter of the entire transaction connected with this vessel and 
 her cargo, and that Captain Dyett and Chadwick were con- 
 cerned in carrying out the unlawful purpose, and endeavored 
 to promote that end by attempting to conceal the evidence 
 which they had in their possession. The spoliation of papers 
 is a strong circumstance of suspicion. {1 Kenfs Comm. 
 157.) It is not, however, either in England or in the United 
 States, held to furnish, of itself, sufficient ground for condem- 
 nation, but is a circumstance open to explanation. {The 
 Hunter, 1 Bodson, 480; The Pisarro, 2 Wheaton, 221 .) 
 But, if the explanation'be not prompt and frank, or be weak or 
 futile, if the cause labors under heavy suspicions, or if there be 
 a vehement presumption of bad faith or gross prevarication, it 
 is ground for the denial of further proof, and the condemna- 
 tion ensues from defects in the evidence, which the party is 
 not permitted to supply. (I Kent's Comm., 158 / The Pi- 
 sarro, 2 Wheaton, 227; Bernardi v. Motteaux, Doug., 554, 
 
48 
 
 559, 560.) In the cnse of The Two Brothers, (1 Ch. Boh 
 131,) the master had burned some letters, before capture, 
 whicli he said were only private letters. Sir William Scott 
 says, in commenting upon that circumstance; " No rule can 
 be better known than that neutral masters are not at liberty 
 to destroy papers, or, if they do, that they will not be permitted 
 to explain away such suppression by saying, ' they were only 
 private letters.' In all cases, it must be considered as a proof 
 oi mala fides ; and, where that appears, it is a universal rule, 
 to presume the worst against those who are convicted of it. It 
 will always be supposed that such letters relate to the ship or 
 cargo, and that it was of material consequence to some inter- 
 ests that they should be destroyed." In the case of The Hi' 
 sing Sun, (2 Ch. Bob. 104,) Sir William Scott says : " Spoliation 
 is not alone, in our Courts of Admiralty, a cause of condem- 
 nation ; but, if other circumstances occur to raise suspicion, it is 
 not too much to say, of a spoliation of papers, that the person 
 guilty of that act shall not have the aid of the Court, or bo per- 
 mitted to give farther proof, if further proof is necessary." 
 
 The withholding by the master of the two letters, in the 
 present case, until his examination, while he gave up to the 
 captors the letter to the British consul at Havana, and, as he 
 says, all his own private papers, would have been a complete 
 suppression of the two letters in question, if their production 
 had not been compelled by the stringent character of the stand- 
 ing interrogatories. In the case of The Concordia^ (1 Ch. Bob. 
 119,) the master withheld his instructions until the time of his 
 examination. Sir William Scott says: "This was certainly 
 incorrect. It is a master's duty to produce all his papers, and, 
 least of all, to withhold his instructions, which are very im- 
 portant papers to be communicated for the interest of botli 
 parties." So, also, the concealment by Chadwick of the let- 
 ters to him, which showed the true character of the enterprise 
 of \}^^ Stejphen Hart, would have been as effectually a de- 
 struction of those papers, for the purposes of this case, if they 
 had not been found upon the search, as if they had been 
 actually thrown into the sea and lost. ' And the suspicion 
 
/^/ 
 
 49 
 
 which the law attaches to a spoliation of papers arises with 
 equal force from an attempted spoliation. 
 
 That Captain Dyett and all of his crew knew of the block- 
 ade of the enemy's ports, is abundantly established by the 
 evidence. I^ellman says, {Int. 21,) that "all on board knew 
 that the Southern States, including Florida, were in a state 
 of war with the United States, and the Southern ports block- 
 aded by the United States Navy." " It was a matter of con- 
 versation on board during tlie voyage." Captain Dyett says, 
 {Int. 21 :) ''I knew of the rebellion in the Southern States, and 
 that some of the Southern ports were blockaded." 
 
 Captain Dyett says, {Lit. 36,) that the vessel was steering for 
 Cardenas when she was captured, and that her course was not 
 altered upon the appearance of the capturing vessel. Chad- 
 wick, on his first examination, {Int. 36,) says the same thing. 
 !N"elIman says, {Int. 36,) that when they first saw the capturing 
 vessel, about six o'clock in the morning, the Stephen Hart was 
 standing towards Key West, and continued on that course until 
 about twelve o'clock, when she tacked and steered towards 
 Havana, and was steering towards Havana when captured ; 
 that their course, at all times when wind and weather per- 
 mitted, was towards Cardenas, except in the instance men- 
 tioned, and except when obliged to pursue another course on 
 account of head winds ; and that the latter was the reason why 
 the vessel was steering towards Havana at the time of her 
 capture. Nellman says that he had the watch when the cap- 
 turing vessel was first seen ; and that Chadwick had the watch 
 from eight A. M. until noon, and he, Nellman, again, from 
 noon to four o'clock. JSTellman {Int. 19) and Allan {Int. 3) say, 
 that the capture was made about two o'clock, P. M. Although 
 Captain Dyett, and Chadwick on his first examination, say, 
 {Int. 3G,) that the course of the vessel was, at all times when 
 wind and weather would permit, towards Cardenas, yet it is 
 apparent that she set out from England with the intention of 
 running the blockade, if she could, and she was captured in a 
 position consistent with that intention. 
 The evidence which has been reviewed establishes, beyond 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 reasonable doubt, that the cargo of the Stephen Hart was in- 
 tended, on its departure from England, to be carried into the 
 enemy's country, for the use of the enemy, by a violation of the 
 blockade of some one of the enemy's ports, either in the Stephen 
 Hart, or in another vessel into which the cargo was to be 
 transhipped, for the purpose of being transported by sea to the 
 enemy's country. This is clearly established without the aid 
 of the testimony given by Chadwick on his re-examination. 
 Some portions of that testimony have been incidentally al- 
 luded to. The other main facts detailed by Chadwick on his 
 re-examination, are entirely consistent with all the rest of the 
 evidence in the case, and are corroborated by that evidence. 
 Some of the points of corroboration have been already alluded 
 to, and I shall refer to others. 
 
 Chadwick says, on his re-examination, {Int. 11 :) "The ves- 
 sel was bound to Cardenas, in Cuba, but the destination of 
 her cargo was certainly to one of the Confederate States, 
 and the vessel was, in like manner, so destined, if Charles J. 
 Helm, the Confederate agent at Cuba, should so direct. 
 That voyage began in London, and was to have ended at 
 Cardenas, or any port in the Confederate States which the 
 aforesaid Confederate agent should direct." He also says, 
 {Int. 36 :) " The vessel was steering for Cardenas, but that 
 port was to be used only as an intermediate port of call, and 
 of transhipment of the cargo, if necessary, or ordered by 
 Charles J. Helm." He also says, {Int. 39,) that after he 
 had gone in the vessel, then called the Taniaulipas^ivoiwl^QV}- 
 Orleans, by the way of Havana and Matanzas, to Falmouth 
 and Bristol, England, and thence in the same vessel to Lon- 
 don, he was requested to go to No. 71 Jermyn street, Lon- 
 don. He adds: "I accordingly went, and was there intro- 
 duced to Mr. Isaacs, the head of the firm of Isaacs, Campbell 
 & Co., and also to a Mr. Hughes, whose first name I did not 
 learn, and who told me he was the Commercial Confederate 
 agent for purchasing arms and ammunition for, and shipping 
 the same to, the Confederate States. He asked me how I 
 would like to run the blockade of the Southern States in the 
 
/^^ 
 
 51 
 
 Stephen Hart. I answered, ' that I would sooner go in a 
 steamer.' There was no definite arrangement made at that 
 time. I was again sent for, and went to the same place, 
 where I met Mr. Isaacs, the same Captain Hughes, and Wil- 
 liam L. Yancey of the United States, There was also a South 
 Carolina captain there. I was taken by Captain Hughes and 
 this South Carolina captain, (whose name was Connor,) into 
 another room, and there fully examined in regard to ray 
 knowledge of the Southern coast of the United States. I was 
 then employed by Captain Hughes as a pilot agent, and to 
 leave the Stephen Hart and go on board of a steamer which 
 he had chartered, and which was then taking in a cargo of 
 arms and ammunition for the Confederate States. I was to 
 leave the Stephen Hart^ go ashore and take lodgings, and ob- 
 serve secrecy until I was called, which I did. About a week 
 afterwards, I was told to go on board of the steamer Gladiator, 
 then lying in the Thames, and examine and see if she had 
 proper boats for landing her cargo in the surf on the Southern 
 coast, if required, and report to Hughes. I did so, and 
 reported that she had, with the exception of one boat. I was 
 then ordered to take my things on board of that vessel, (the 
 Gladiator,) and proceed in her to I^assau, and there either 
 obtain a pilot for her, or else pilot her myself into some South- 
 ern port of the Confederate States between Cape Carnaval, in 
 Florida, and York Kiver, Virginia. I went aboard accord- 
 ingly. That vessel was loaded with arms, ammunition and 
 army outfits. After I got aboard, it was found that she could 
 not carry all the cargo which had been bought for her, and, 
 accordingly, what portion thereof could not be taken by the 
 Gladiator was put aboard of the Stephen Hart, together with 
 other like cargo to fill her up. I was ordered to proceed 
 from the Gladiator, and take charge of the loading and fitting 
 out of the Stephen Hart, which I did. On my recommenda- 
 tion to Captain Hughes, Captain Dyett was appointed master 
 of the Stephen Hart, while I was to go in her nominally as 
 mate, but really in charge of the cargo, consisting of arras and 
 munitions of war. The vessel proceeded down the Thames 
 
52 
 
 several miles, and there took aboard a quantity of powder." 
 Nell man testifies {Ird. 30) to the same effect as to tlie place 
 where the powder was taken on board. Chadwick proceeds: 
 " Before tiie Stepheii Hart left, I was instructed by Captain 
 Hughes to proceed to Cuba, that is, to Cardenas,''and there to 
 work under the instructions of Charles J. Helm, the agent for 
 the " Confederate States" at that place. He said the cargo was 
 to be transhipped into a steamer, which could be used with 
 greater facility in running the blockade, or she might be 
 ordered to proceed herself." The connection of Hughes with 
 the transaction, and his being an agent for " the Confederate 
 States," and the lader of the cargo on board of the Stephen 
 Hart, are also testified to by Nellman, [Int. 16.) The con- 
 tents of the letter of instructions to Captain Dyett confirm all 
 that Chadwick says, on his re-examination, as to the connection 
 of Helm with the matter, and as to the certain destination of the 
 cargo and the contingent destination of the vessel being to a 
 port of the enemy. It is stated by Nellman, [Int. 14,) that he 
 heard Chadwick say that the cargo was going to the enemy's 
 country, and {Lit. 24) that a steamer would receive it at Cu- 
 ba very probably, and would carry it thence to a port of the 
 enemy. And it is apparent, from what Nellman says, {Int. 
 14-,) that it was understood, on board of the Stephen Hart, that 
 the cargo was destined for a port of the enemy, and was to be 
 carried there in that vessel, or to be transhipped to another 
 vessel for the same purpose. Chadwick proceeds : " The 
 agreement was, that I should have $45 a month for all the time 
 I was employed, including any time I might be detained or im- 
 prisoned, in consequence of any attempt to run the blockade ; 
 and, if I had gone in the Gladiator, I was to have received a 
 bounty of $500 ; and in the Stephen Hart, if ordered by Helm 
 to cross the blockade, I was to have a bonus, to be agreed 
 upon with him." The shipping articles confirm this state- 
 ment of Chadwick's to a certain extent, as they show that his 
 wages were to be £9 per month. They also show that the 
 wages of the mate, whose place he took, were only £6 per 
 month. He then goes on to state, as he had already stated in 
 
/^o 
 
 53 
 
 his aflBdavit upon which the order for his re-examination was 
 made, that he was induced to state these facts, not by any 
 persons in any way connected with the libellants or captors, 
 but solely by the persuasions of his wife, " who is a loyal wo- 
 man, and now residing in Boston." 
 
 The absence from on board of the Stephen Hart of the bills 
 of lading and manifest, to whose existence the master testifies, 
 and of all invoices of the cargo, has been already referred to. 
 The absence of these papers, in time of war, is a suspicious 
 circumstance, as affecting the question of the neutrality of the 
 cargo and the honesty of the trade. (1 Kent\ Comm. 157 ; Hal- 
 leck on International Law^ chapter 25, section 25, page 622.) 
 
 It has been strongly urged upon the Court, in the present 
 case, that as Harris, the alleged owner of the vessel, is not 
 shown to have any interest in any of the cargo, the vessel can 
 be visited with no greater penalty for carrying contraband 
 articles, even though they were intended for the enemy, than 
 the loss of freight and expenses. But, even on the assumption 
 that the grounds already set forth in respect to the real own- 
 ership of the vessel, are not sufficient for her condemnation, 
 the Court is of opinion that her condemnation must, under the 
 circumstances, follow the condemnation of the cargo, the lat- 
 ter being contraband of war, and intended, on its departure 
 from England, to be carried into the enemy's country by a 
 violation of the blockade. The contingent destination of the 
 vessel to a blockaded port would be sufficient, under the au- 
 thority of the case of The Eichmond, before cited, to warrant 
 her condemnation. But, even if her destination was only to 
 Cardenas, yet, as her cargo was intended, on its departure from 
 England, to be introduced into the enemy's country, by being 
 transhipped from the vessel at Cardenas, condemnation must 
 equally follow, because of the employment of the vessel in 
 this unlawful enterprise, under the circumstances disclosed in 
 this case. As testified to by Captain Dyett, there was no 
 charter-party for the voyage. He says that he was put in 
 charge of the vessel, not by Harris, her alleged owner, but by 
 S. Isaac, Campbell & Co., the claimants of the cargo. No 
 
54 
 
 instrnctions from Harris to Captain Djett are found, but only 
 instructions to him from S. Isaac, Campbell & Co. Harris, 
 therefore, surrendered the entire control of his vessel to that 
 firm, and her master must be regarded as their agent, and the 
 claimant of the vessel must be held responsible for the use to 
 which the master and the claimants of the cargo put the ves- 
 sel. {Jecker v. Montgomery^ IS Howard, 110, 119.) That 
 use was the carrying, for a portion of the distance on its way 
 to the enemy's country, of a cargo contraband of war, intended 
 for the use of the enemy, and. to enter the enemy's port by a 
 violation of the blockade. This use of the vessel was, under 
 the authorities before cited, unlawful in its inception, and, the 
 entire transportation of the cargo from England to the ene- 
 my's country being unlawful, the vessel must be condemned 
 for having been permitted, by Harris, to be used, at the plea- 
 sure of S. Isaac, Campbell & Co., in carrying out a portion of 
 the unlawful purpose. Such use was, under the circumstances, 
 in judgment of law, with the knowledge and assent of Harris. 
 Chadwick, on his re-examination, [Int. 39,) states that Harris 
 wished him to continue in the Stephen Hart as mate, " that 
 either she would go to, or else he would put me on board of 
 another vessel to go to the Confederate States." 
 
 In the case of The Ringende Jacob, (1 Ch. Rob. 89,) Sir 
 "William Scott says that, under the ancient law of Europe, the 
 carrying of a contraband cargo rendered the vessel liable 
 to condemnation ; but that, in the modern practice of the 
 Courtsof Admiralty of England, a milder rule has been adopt- 
 ed, and that the carrying of contraband articles is attended 
 only with the loss of freight and expenses, " except where the 
 ship belongs to the owner of the contraband cargo, or where 
 the simple misconduct of carrying a contraband cargo has 
 been connected with other malignant and asfc-ravated circum- 
 stances." And he cites as an exception, a case attended with 
 particular circumstances of falsehood and fraud, both as to 
 the papers and the destination of the voyage, and in which 
 there was an attempt, under colorable appearances, to defeat 
 the rights of the belligerent. The same doctrine is laid down 
 
/^/ 
 
 55 
 
 in the case of The Jonge ToUas, (1 Ch. Rob. 329.) In the 
 case of The Franklin, (3 Ch. Rob, 217,) a neutral vessel, osten- 
 sibly bound to a neutral port, and whose cargo consisted of 
 several articles which were contraband if going to the enemy, 
 was held, by Sir William Scott, to have been captured while 
 really on her way to a port of the enemy. He says : " I have 
 had frequent occasion to observe that it is very difficult to de- 
 tect a fraud of this species in the particular instances. Pre- 
 tences and excuses are always resorted to, the fallacy of w^hich 
 can seldom be completely exposed ; and therefore, without 
 undertaking the task of exposing them in the particular case, 
 the Court has been induced (and I hope not unwarrantably) 
 to hold generally in each case that the certain fact shall pre- 
 vail over the dubious explanations." " I am satisfied, on the 
 facts of this case, that it was the plan of this voyage to carry 
 the ship fraudulently, under a false destination, into a Spanish 
 port. The consequence will be, that this fraudulent conduct, 
 on the part of those who are concerned in the ship, will justly 
 subject her to confiscation. Anciently, the carrying of con- 
 traband did, in ordinary cases, affect the ship, and, although a 
 relaxation has taken place, it is a relaxation, the benefit of 
 which can only be claimed by fair cases. The aggravation of 
 fraud justifies additional penalties." He then announces it as 
 the settled rule of law, " that the carriage of contraband, with 
 a false destination, will work a condemnation of the ship as 
 well as the cargo." In that case the owner of the ship was 
 not the owner of the cargo, but, being himself a neutral, had 
 entered into a charter-party for a voyage of the vessel from one 
 neutral port to another neutral port. In a note to the case, 
 these very appropriate remarks are made : " The relaxation of 
 the old rule has been directed, in its practical application, as 
 well as in its origin, only to such cases as afi"ord a presumption 
 that the owner was innocent, or the master deceived. Where 
 the owner is himself privy to the transaction, or where his 
 agent interposes so actively in the fraud as to consent to give 
 additional cover to it by sailing with false papers, all pretence 
 of ignorance or innocence is precluded, and there seems to be 
 no further ground, consistent with equity and good sense, upon 
 
66 
 
 which the relaxation in favor of the ship can any longer be 
 supposed to exist." The same principles are laid down in the 
 cases of The Mercurius, (1 C/i. Rob. 288,) The Edward, (4 Ch. 
 Rob. 68,) and The Weutralitet, (3 Ch. Rob. 295.) In the lat- 
 ter case, Sir William Scott says that, where a vessel is carry- 
 ino" contraband articles nnder a false destination or false 
 papers, those circumstances of aggravation constitute excepted 
 cases out of the modern rule, and continue them in the 
 ancient one. In The Ranger, (6 Ch. Rob. 125,) which was the 
 case of an American vessel with a cargo which was documented 
 for a neutral port, but was going to the enemy's port, and 
 was condemned as contraband. Sir William Scott says : " I also 
 condemn the vessel, as employed in carrying a cargo of sea 
 stores to a place of naval equipment, under false papers. It is 
 described, I perceive, as an American vessel. But, 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 consequence of such miscon- 
 duct on the part of his agent." In the Oster Risoer, (4 Ch. 
 Rob. 199,) Sir William Scott held, that a master could not be 
 permitted to aver his ignorance of the contents of contraband 
 packages on board of his vessel; that he was bound, in time 
 of war, to know the contents of his cargo ; and that, if a dif- 
 ferent rule could be sustained, it might be applied to excuse 
 the carrying of all contraband. 
 
 One important circumstance, to show that the cargo of the 
 Stephen Hart was intended for the enemy, is the fact that a 
 part of it consisted of ninety thousand buttons, marked with 
 the initials " C. S. A.," which it is well understood stand for 
 the words " Confederate States of America," or " Confederate 
 States' Army," the buttons being such as are used on army 
 clothing for the three services of an army. 
 
 This review of the facts in this case leads to the conclusion 
 that the vessel and her cargo must both of them be con- 
 demned. No doubt is left upon the mind that th'=>-'''~e is one 
 of a manifest attempt to introduce contraband gdoas into the 
 
/^^- 
 
 57 
 
 enemy's territory by a breach of blockade, for which the ves- 
 sel must be held liable to forfeiture, as well as her cargo. 
 Chadwick was evidently employed by reason of his being a 
 citizen of the United States, familiar with the enemy's coun- 
 try, and qualified to conduct the vessel into one of the block- 
 aded ports. The vessel was captured in a position convenient 
 for running the blockade. The cargo consisted of arms, muni- 
 tions of war and military equipments, and, among them, a 
 large quantity of military buttons, stamped in such a manner 
 as to render them capable of no appropriate use save for the 
 infantry, cavalry and artillery of the enemy's army, thus 
 showing that the enemy's country was their only appropriate 
 destination. The absence of the manifest and bills of lading 
 is not satisfactorily accounted for, and the want of any in- 
 voices and of any charter-party is a circumstance of great 
 weight against the lawfulness of the commerce. The attempt, 
 by the master, to suppress his letter of instructions and the 
 letter to Helm, the agent of the enemy in Cuba, and the at- 
 tempt of the mate to conceal the letters which show that the 
 design was, that the Stephen Hart should, under his guidance, 
 enter a blockaded port of the enemy, and which also contain 
 specific directions for entering the harbor of Charleston, jus- 
 tify the conclusion that Charleston, or some other port of the 
 enemy, was the real destination of the vessel and her cargo. 
 The absence of any charter-party, and of any instructions 
 from Harris to Captain Dyett, and the entire surrender by 
 Harris of the control of the vessel to the laders of the cargo, 
 and to the master as their agent, involve the vessel in all the 
 guilt which attaches to the cargo. The object of carrying the 
 flag of the enemy, could only have been that it might be used 
 for the purpose of entering the enemy's ports — a conclusion 
 strengthened by the fact that it was thrown overboard at the 
 time of the capture. The charts found on board are charts of 
 such a character as to enable a vessel to enter many of the 
 blockaded ports. The letter concealed by the mate, which 
 contains '^'i-'^ctions for entering the harbor of Charleston, is 
 one which ^^ had a motive to preserve by concealing and not 
 
X'y^ 
 
 58 
 
 to destroy, because, upon the regular papers of the vessel, he 
 must have indulged the hope that she would have been permit- 
 ted, after a search, to proceed upon the voyage indicated by 
 her papers, and thus, that the letter in question would after- 
 wards become useful on a further voyage to the port of the 
 enemy. There is an absence of all papers and circumstances 
 to warrant the conclusion that there was any intent to dispose 
 of the cargo at Cardenas, in the usual way of lawful com- 
 merce. The consignee of the entire cargo was the agent of 
 the enemy, and the cargo was laden on board by the agent of 
 the enemy in London. The asserted ignorance of the master 
 as to the contents of his cargo, and as to the fact that arms are 
 contraband of war, and the ambiguous destination set out in 
 the shipping articles, are circumstances which, with many 
 others, go to swell the volume of suspicion attaching to the 
 enterprise. In addition to all this, there is the positive evi- 
 dence which has been referred to, particularly of Chadwick 
 and Nellman, as to the actual destination of the cargo. All 
 the material facts of the case, which lead to a condemnation, 
 are proved without any resort to the re-examinations either 
 of Leisk' or of Chadwick. 
 
 This is not a case for further proof, and no application has 
 b,een made on the part of the claimants to supply any further 
 pil-p^f as to any point. There must, therefore, be a decree 
 ^q^d^efljining both the vessel and her cargo. 
 
 ,02/1/50 9(ll tu 
 9(!.} IIb lli l03S9. 
 
 odJ ^/li (/n/iO to 1D9^_ 
 b98u 9<J Jilgicii 3i tndi 
 fioianloaoo s — 8l-ioq z\. 
 
 Otll Ifi bli50(J'I9VO n7?0'ufj . 
 
 'to ei-tRiio 91B biBod no bnuot 
 adi "lo vnxun -loJas o.t l9?;39v ^ 
 dorilv^ j9Jtjm 9f(} \^ holfiyonoo i9. 
 8£ (ioJ«9l'ii;ilO 1o nod-iKii 9di :ga}i9Ja 
 ion bni5 gfiKiiooftoo -{d 97i989-iq ot yviioi. 
 
^^■•:%f