« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
21, 1862, prohibiting the exportation of warlike materials from the ports of the United States," she would be detained till ordered by the President to be released.
On March 23, 1865, Mr. Seward stated that orders had been issued by the Department of State" to the Secretaries of War and Treasury, for the release of the steamer Colon, purchased by General P. A. Herran for the Peruvian Government," and that orders to that effect had been telegraphed by the War Department to the general commanding the Department of the Pacific.
Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fessenden, Sec. of Treasury, Dec. 9, 1864, 67 MS. Dom. Let. 272; Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Señor Don Carlos Tracy, Dec. 19, 1864, MS. Notes to Peruvian Leg. I. 288; Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Señor Don Emilio Bonifaz, March 15, 1865, id. 291; same to same, March 23, 1865, id. 292.
Persons and vessels arrested under order of the President for breach of neutrality may be detained by the naval forces of the United States, under his directions, until lawfully discharged.
Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Edwards Pierrepont, U. S. dist. atty. at
In July, 1869, the President issued to the district attorney and mar shal for the southern district of New York a commission empowering them, or either of them, “to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia thereof, for the purposes indicated in the eighth section of the act of April 20, 1818, commonly known as the neutrality act.'
Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pierrepont, July 13, 1869, 81 MS. Dom.
Orders were at the same time given for the capture of all concerned in
See also Mr. Fish's letter to Mr. Pierrepont, of July 15, 1869; Mr. Fish to
The proper authorities in New York will be instructed to detain gunboats preparing to issue from that port, in violation of neutrality in the contest between Peru and Spain.
Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Freyre, Aug. 10, 1869, MS. Notes to Peru,
As to withdrawal of this order on peace between Peru and Spain, see
In the case of certain Spanish gunboats which were detained under legal process at New York at the instance of the Peruvian minister,
on the ground that a state of war existed between Peru and Spain and that they were intended to operate against Peru, the Spanish minister at Washington desired the Department of State to inform the Peruvian minister that the vessels were not intended to operate against Peru or to relieve other vessels of the Spanish navy in Cuban waters for use against Peru, and that it was the desire of the Spanish Government to cultivate the most friendly relations with all the SpanishAmerican republics and to discard any unfriendly policy towards them. Mr. Fish communicated these assurances to the Peruvian minister, at the same time referring to a declaration made by the latter to Mr. Seward on May 8, 1868, that a formal state of war no longer existed between the allied republics and Spain, "but on the contrary a condition of imperfect peace." The Peruvian minister, accepting these assurances, withdrew any objection to the departure of the vessels; and the Government of the United States announced that it could no longer hesitate to adopt "the conclusion that a state of war does no longer exist between the governments of Spain and Peru," a conclusion which involved the withdrawal of the proceedings against the gunboats.
Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Freyre, Peruvian min., Dec. 3, 1869, MS.
As to a similar declaration made by the representative of Peru to Spain
See, also, Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Shishkin, Feb. 21, 1879, MS
The President, under the eighth section of the act of April 20, 1818, is not required to arrest in a United States port an unarmed vessel unless it be shown that a military enterprise is begun or set on foot through her contrary to the provisions of the statute.
Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bernabé, Mar. 23, 1874, MS. Notes to
"The several collectors of the customs shall detain any vessel manifestly built for warlike purposes, and about to depart the United States, the cargo of which principally consists of arms and munitions of war, when the number of men shipped on board, or other circumstances, render it probable that such vessel is intended to be employed by the owners to cruise or commit hostilities upon the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States are at peace, until the decision of the President is had thereon, or until the owner
gives such bond and security as is required of the owners of armed vessels by the preceding section."
Section 5290, Revised Statutes.
"I notice your reference to the inadequacy of the powers with which a collector of customs is invested under Title 67, R. S., to meet the emergency of an attempt by an armed organization to leave our' shores in violation of the neutrality laws. The conjoint operation of the revenue and judicial powers has, however, in recent instances been sufficient to thwart and punish criminal attempts in the United States against the peace of friendly neighbors, such as Hayti and Honduras."
Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Act. Sec. of Treasury, July 3, 1886, 160 MS.
Under sec. 970, Revised Statutes, the collector of a port made application for a certificate of reasonable cause for having seized a steamer for a violation of the neutrality laws. The steamer had been chartered for the use of insurgents against the Colombian Government to carry arms for their use. The manifest did not state that she had arms aboard, and a false destination was given. After discharging her arms she took soldiers aboard, who captured customhouse officers and tried to use the steamer to capture a Colombian vessel. Held, that the certificate should issue.
The City of Mexico, 25 Fed. Rep. 924.
A collector of customs is not justified in refusing clearance to a vessel and her cargo, under sec. 5290, Revised Statutes, because she is intended to transport arms and munitions of war for the use of an insurrectionary party in a country with which the United States is at peace.
Henricks v. Gonzalez, 67 Fed. Rep. 351, 14 C. C. A. 659.
6. EXACTION OF BOND.
"The owners or consignees of every armed vessel sailing out of the ports of the United States, belonging wholly or in part to citizens thereof, shall, before clearing out the same, give bond to the United States, with sufficient sureties, in double the amount of the value of the vessel and cargo on board, including her armament, conditioned that the vessel shall not be employed by such owners to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any
foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace."
Section 5289, Revised Statutes.
"The Government of the United States has taken no new resolution to prevent vessels under their flag sailing from their ports in a warlike condition. The law on this subject has remained the same during the last ten years. According to the provisions of the act of Congress, every person is prohibited from fitting out and arming or augmenting the force of any vessel within the limits of the United States to cruise against the subjects, citizens, or property of any prince or state, colony, district, or people with whom the United States are at peace. In instances in which the sailing of armed vessels belonging wholly or in part to citizens of the United States, which is allowed in certain cases for self-protection against pirates or other unlawful aggressions, the owners are required to give bond with sufficient sureties in double the amount of the value of the vessel and cargo, prior to clearing, that it shall not be employed by such owners to cruise against powers with which the United States are at peace. And in other instances the proper officers are authorized to detain any vessel manifestly built for warlike purposes, and about to depart from the United States, the cargo of which vessel shall principally consist of arms and ammunition of war when the number of men shipped on board or other circumstances shall indicate that such vessel is intended to be employed by the owners to cruise or commit hostilities against friendly powers until the decision of the President thereon, or until the owners shall give bond and security as previously required.”
Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rebello, Brazilian chargé, May 1, 1828,
As to the bond given by the German Empire (which ceased to exist Dec.
That a United States district judge has power to require a person, who has given just ground to suspect him of an intent to violate the neutrality laws, to give bond that he will observe them, see United States v. Quitman, 2 Am. L. Reg., 645.
When a court of the United States, in the exercise of its discretion, has advisedly determined to permit a vessel libeled for violation of the neutrality laws to be released on bond, the executive department has no power to interfere with the proceedings.
Stanbery, At. Gen., 1866, 12 Op. 2.
"It has been held that persons justly suspected of an intention to engage in such enterprises may be required by the courts to give bond not to do so. (United States v. John A. Quitman, 2 Am. Law Reg., 645.) Persons in charge of any armed vessel may be required to give like security as a condition of clearance. (Rev. Stats., secs. 5289, 5290.)"
Harmon, At. Gen., Dec. 10, 1895, 21 Op. 267, 272–273.
Where a vessel, libeled for forfeiture under section 5283 of the Revised Statutes, was released on bond and stipulation, it was held that she was improvidently released and should be recalled; and it was intimated, but not decided, that, in the case of a libel for forfeiture under section 5283, the release of a vessel on bond and stipulation, as in the pending case, before answer or hearing, against the objection of the United States, was unauthorized.
The Three Friends (1897), 166 U. S. 1. 68, citing, particularly, The Mary
7. RESTITUTION OF CAPTURED PROPERTY.
"The Sieur Cunningham, captain of an American armed vessel, after having wasted the British commerce, entered the port of Dunkirk. He there disarmed his vessel, and declared that he was about to load with merchandise for one of the ports of Norway. As this declaration appeared suspicious, security was demanded of Cunningham; he presented two, the Sieurs Hodge and Allen, both British. Cunningham sailed in reality from the port of Dunkirk without being armed; but clandestinely, and in the night, he caused seamen, guns, and warlike stores to be put on board his vessel, which was in the road. He set sail and in a short time made prize of a British packet-boat, the Prince of Orange. As soon as the French government was made acquainted with the fraud of Cunningham, they caused the Sieur Hodge, one of his securities, to be arrested and conducted to the Bastile; and the packet-boat was restored to the Court of London without further trial, because the offense of Cunningham was evident and public."
Observations on the Justificative Memorial of the Court of London, by Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, English translation, Philadelphia, 1781.
A copy of the rare pamphlet from which the foregoing is quoted was presented by the Hon. A. B. Hagner, of Washington, to the Department of State in 1879. Of this pamphlet, Caleb Cushing, in a letter to Mr. Hagner, of January 7, 1874, speaks as follows: The memoirs which it contains are of the highest possible historical and juridical value.