direction as to vessel or cargo recognized him as such; but that, on the contrary, all the papers and all the circumstances indicated that a sale was made in Charleston under the power, by which the beneficial control and real ownership were transferred to John Frazer & Co., while the apparent title, by the British papers, was suffered to remain in Haigh as a cover. It was therefore held that the ownership of Haigh was a pretense, and that the vessel was rightly condemned as enemy property.

Assuming for the moment, however, that Haigh was the owner of the ship, the court next considered the question as to the employment of the vessel and cargo at the time of the capture. The theory of counsel for Haigh was, said the court, that the ship was neutral and carried a neutral cargo, in good faith, from one neutral port to another; and they insisted that the description of cargo, if neutral, and in a neutral ship and on a neutral voyage, could not be inquired into in the courts of a belligerent.

a

"We agree to this," said the court. Neutrals might "convey in neutral ships, from one neutral port to another, any goods, whether contraband of war or not, if intended for actual delivery at the port of destination, and to become part of the common stock of the country or of the port."

It was asserted by counsel, said the court, that British merchants had "a perfect right to trade, even in military stores, between their own ports, and to sell at one of them goods of all sorts, even to an enemy of the United States, with knowledge of his intent to employ them in rebel war against the American Government. If," continued the court," by trade between neutral ports is meant real trade, in the course of which goods conveyed from one port to another become incorporated into the mass of goods for sale in the port of destination; and if by sale to the enemies of the United States is meant sale to either belligerent, without partiality to either, we accept the proposition of counsel as correct. But if it is intended to affirm that a neutral ship may take on a contraband cargo ostensibly for a neutral port, but destined in reality for a belligerent port, either by the same ship or by another, without becoming liable, from the commencement to the end of the voyage, to seizure, in order to the confiscation of the cargo, we do not agree to it."

Applying these principles to the case under consideration, the court observed that a large part of the cargo was contraband in the narrowest sense of the word, and a part of it expressly destined to the Confederate States, so that the character of the cargo made "its ulterior, if not direct, destination to a rebel port quite certain.” There was, besides, evidence of destination found in the letters of

a Possibly the phrase "description of cargo," which appears in the published report, is a misprint. The character of the cargo is what seems to be meant.

Frazer, Trenholm & Co., which made distinct references to the contingency of transshipment; and the evidence showed that the Herald was sent over with a view to this. Moreover, the consignment of the whole cargo to order or assigns, which meant in fact to the order of John Frazer & Co., of Charleston, was "conclusive, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that its destination was the port in which the consignee resided and transacted business.. It makes no difference," said the court, "whether the destination to the rebel port was ulterior or direct; nor could the question of destination be affected by transshipment at Nassau, if transshipment was intended, for that could not break the continuity of transportation of the cargo. The interposition of a neutral port between neutral departure and belligerent destination has always been a favorite resort of contraband carriers and blockade runners. But it never avails them when the ultimate destination is ascertained. A transportation from one point to another remains continuous, so long as intent remains unchanged, no matter what stoppages or transshipments intervene.” a There seemed to be no reason, said the court, "why this reasonable and settled doctrine should not be applied to each ship where several are engaged successively in one transaction, namely, the conveyance of a contraband cargo to a belligerent. The question of liability must depend on the good or bad faith of the owners of the ships. If a part of the voyage is lawful, and the owners of the ship conveying the cargo in that part are ignorant of the ulterior destination, and do not hire their ship with a view to it, the ship can not be liable; but if the ulterior destination is the known inducement to the partial voyage, and the ship is engaged in the latter with a view to the former, then whatever liability may attach to the final voyage must attach to the earlier, undertaken with the same cargo and in continuity of its conveyance. Successive voyages, connected by a common plan and a common object, form a plural unit, They are links of the same chain, each identical in description with every other, and each essential to the continuous whole."

66

a

Should the Bermuda, on these principles, be condemned for the conveyance of contraband? "By the ancient rule," said the court, the vessel which carried contraband was condemned as well as the cargo." Of this rule there had been a great but very proper relaxation to the effect that the neutral might convey contraband to a belligerent, subject to no liability except seizure with a view to the confiscation of the offending goods. This relaxation, however, required good faith on the part of the neutral, and did not protect the ship where good faith was wanting. Thus, the carrying of contraband with a false des

a The court cited Jecker v. Montgomery, 18 Howard, 114; The Polly, 2. C. Rob. 369; The William, 5 C. Rob. 395; 1 Kent's Comm., 84, note.

tination was a ground of condemnation." Mere consent to transportation of contraband will not always or usually be taken to be a violation of good faith; but the belligerent is entitled to require of neutrals a frank and bona fide conduct. So, too, vessels had been condemned for being engaged actually or practically in enemy service.© What, then, inquired the court, "were the marks by which the conveyance of contraband on the Bermuda was accompanied? First, we have the character of the contraband articles, fitted for immediate military use in battle, or for the immediate civil service of the rebel government; then the deceptive bills of lading requiring delivery at Bermuda, when there was either no intention to deliver at Bermuda at all, or none not subject to be changed by enemies of the United States; then the appointment of one of these enemies as master, necessarily made with the knowledge and consent of Haigh, if he was owner; then the complete surrender of the vessel to the use and control of such enemies, without even the pretence of want of knowledge, by the alleged owner, of her destined and actual employment." The circumstances rendered it highly probable that the ship at the time of capture was actually in the service of the Confederate government, and known to be so by all parties interested in her ownership. But, however this might be, it could not be doubted “that the Bermuda was justly liable to condemnation for the conveyance of contraband goods destined to a belligerent port, under circumstances of fraud and bad faith, which make the owner, if Haigh was owner, responsible for unneutral participation in the war. The cargo, having all been consigned to enemies, and most of it contraband, must share the fate of the ship."

Having thus disposed of the questions connected with the ownership, control, and employment of the Bermuda and the character of her cargo, the court added that little need be said on the subject of liability for the violation of the blockade. "What has been already adduced of the evidence," said the court, "satisfies us completely that the original destination of the Bermuda was to a blockaded port; or, if otherwise, to an intermediate port, with intent to send forward the cargo by transshipment into a vessel provided for the completion of the voyage. It may be that the instructions to Westendorff were not settled when the steamship left St. George's for Nassau; but it is quite clear to us that the ship was then at the disposition of John Frazer & Co., and that the voyage, begun at Liverpool with intent to violate the blockade, delayed at St. George's for instructions

a The Franklin, 3 C. Rob. 224.

The Neutralitet, 3 C. Rob. 296; Carrington v. Merchants' Insurance Co., 8 Pet. 518; The Ranger, 6 C. Rob. 126.

The Jonge Emilia, 3 C. Rob. 52; The Carolina, 4 C. Rob. 256.

from that firm, continued toward Nassau for the purpose of completion from that port to a rebel port, either by the Bermuda herself or by transshipment, was one voyage from Liverpool to a blockaded port; and that the liability to condemnation for attempted breach of blockade was, by sailing with such purpose, fastened on the ship as firmly as it would have been by proof of intent that the cargo should be transported by the Bermuda herself to a blockaded port, or as near as possible, without encountering the blockading squadron, and then sent in by a steamer, like the Herald, of lighter draft or greater speed."

As to the question of capture within neutral waters, the court observed that there was nothing in the evidence which proved to its satisfaction that such was the fact.

It was therefore held that "both vessels and cargo, even if both were neutral, were rightly condemned."

By this judgment the decree of the court below condemning the vessel and the munitions of war was affirmed. Subsequently the district court passed a decree condemning the residue of the cargo.

The Bermuda (1865), 3 Wall. 514.

(5) MATAMORAS CASES.

$1260.

The Mexican town of Matamoras, situated on the Rio Grande, nearly opposite Brownsville, in Texas, which formed one of the Confederate States, offered obvious advantages as a base of contraband trade.

The steamer Peterhoff was captured Feb. 25, 1863, near the island. of St. Thomas, D. W. I., by the U. S. S. Vanderbilt, and was condemned by the United States district court for the southern district of New York, together with her cargo, for attempt to break the blockade. From this sentence an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. The Peterhoff was fully documented as a British merchant steamer upon a voyage, as shown by her manifest, shipping list, clearances, and other papers, from London, England, to Matamoras, in Mexico. The bills of lading all stipulated for the delivery of the goods "off the Rio Grande, Gulf of Mexico, for Matamoras," adding that they were to be taken from alongside the ship, provided that lighters could cross the bar at the mouth of the river. The cargo was miscellaneous, and shipped by different persons, all but one of whom were British subjects, and a part of it belonged to the owner of the vessel. Of the numerous packages a certain number contained articles useful for military purposes during war. Among them were 36 cases of artillery harness, 14,450 pair of "Blucher " boots, 5,580 pair of "govern

ment regulation grey blankets," 95 casks of horseshoes of large size, suitable for cavalry service, and 52,000 horseshoe nails. There were also considerable amounts of iron, steel, shovels, spades, blacksmiths' bellows and anvils, nails, and leather, and an assorted lot of drugs1,000 pounds of calomel, large quantities of morphine, 265 pounds of chloroform, and 2,640 ounces of quinine. Owing to the blockade of the coast, drugs, and especially quinine, were greatly needed in the Southern States.

With the exception of a portion consigned to the order of the master, which belonged to the owners of the vessel, the cargo was represented in agency or consigneeship chiefly by three different persons on board the vessel as passengers-Redgate, Bowden, and Almond-all natives of Great Britain, and at the time of the capture all British subjects, except Redgate, who had become a citizen of the United States, and who, before the outbreak of the war, resided in Texas. He stated that at the time of the capture he intended to establish a mercantile house at Matamoras, and that, had his "goods arrived there, they were to take the chances of the market." Bowden and Almond testified to substantially the same effect as to their respective ventures. During the war Matamoras, which lies on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande, nearly opposite the town of Brownsville, in Texas, had, by reason of the facilities which as a neutral port it offered for trade with the Confederacy, whose seaports were all blockaded, suddenly risen from the position of a place of no importance "into a great centre of commercial activity, rivalling the trade of New York or Liverpool.”

The opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of the Peterhoff was delivered by Chief Justice Chase. He stated that the record satisfied the court that the voyage of the ship "was not simulated." She was "in the proper course of a voyage from London to Matamoras;" nor was there any evidence which fairly warranted the belief "that the cargo had any other direct destination." The proposed delivery of the cargo off the mouth of the Rio Grande into lighters for Matamoras was "in the usual course of trade," since it was impossible for a vessel of heavy draught to enter the river. "It is true," said the court, "that, by these lighters, some of the cargo might be conveyed directly to the blockaded coast; but there is no evidence which warrants us in saying that such conveyance was intended by the master or the shippers. We dismiss, therefore, from consideration, the claim, suggested rather than urged in behalf of the Government, that the ship and cargo, both or either, were destined for the blockaded coast."

But it was maintained in argument by counsel for the captors (1) that trade with Matamoras was, at the time of the capture, made unlawful by the blockade of the mouth of the Rio Grande; and, if this was not the case, (2) that the ulterior destination of the cargo