A neutral vessel, completely laden with a neutral cargo and at anchor on the neutral side of a river which washed a blockaded coast, drifted into hostile waters and was captured while temporarily at anchor there on suspicion of intent to break the blockade. It was held that temporary anchorage in waters occupied by the blockading vessels did not justify capture in the absence of other grounds. The Teresita, 5 Wall, 180. To justify a neutral vessel in attempting to enter a blockaded port she must be in such distress as to render her entry a matter of uncontrollable necessity. The Diana, 7 Wall. 354. During the blockade of Port Royal in 1861 a Spanish steam vessel, with the permission of the commander of the blockading squadron, put into that port in distress, and was there seized as prize of war, and used by the Government till June, 1862, when she was brought to New York and condemned. In June of the following year, however, the Government in the meantime using the vessel, a decree of restitution was ordered; but the vessel never was restored. Subsquently the case was referred to a commissioner to ascertain the damages for the seizure and detention, and final judgment was rendered by the court on his award. This judgment was reversed on account of the impropriety of one of the items included in the decree of the district court. But it was held that clearly the vessel was not lawful prize of war or subject to capture, and that her owners were entitled to fair indemnity, though it might well be doubted whether the case was not more properly a subject of diplomatic adjustment than of determination by the courts. The Nuestra Señora de Regla, 17 Wall. 29. 4. EVIDENCE. § 1275. Evidence of intent to violate blockade may be collected from bills of lading, from letters and papers found on board the captured vessel, from acts and words of the owners or hirers of the vessel and the shippers of the cargo and their agents, and from the spoliation of papers in apprehension of capture. The Circassian, 2 Wall. 135. Intent to run a blockade may be inferred in part from delay of the vessel to sail after being completely laden, and from changing the ship's course in order to escape a ship of war cruising for blockade runners. A vessel and cargo, though owned by neutrals, may be con demned as enemy property because of the vessel being engaged in enemy trade and because of an attempt to violate a blockade and to elude visitation and search. The Baigorry, 2 Wall. 474. Presumption of an intent to run a blockade by a vessel bound apparently to a lawful port may be inferred from a combination of circumstances. The Cornelius, 3 Wall. 214. A vessel sailing through blockaded waters was seized on suspicion of intent to break the blockade. Besides the fact that her manifest bore date as of a day when only a part of the cargo was laden, her bills of health and clearance pointed to one port as her port of destination, while the captain's letter of instructions required him to stop at another, not in a direct line, for instructions. The vessel's bills of health specified six men and no passengers, there being, in fact, one passenger; and the provisional certificate of registry represented as sole owner one person, and other papers another. It was held that these circumstances justified the seizure. It further appeared that the vessel's name had been changed, and that her master had ten months before commanded a blockade runner. Not only was her ownership in doubt, the ostensible ownership being apparently but a mere cover, but no claim was put in for her, except by the captain, who put in a claim for the ostensible owners, though without instructions from them and only in his capacity of master. The evidence, too, was very strong that a portion of the cargo was enemy's property. Under these circumstances condemnation was decreed. The Jenny, 5 Wall. 183. The British steamship Newfoundland was seized off the coast of Cuba July 19, 1898, by a United States cruiser on a charge of attempt to violate the blockade of Havana. After the preparatory testimony was taken, an order was made for further proof, and on the subsequent hearing the vessel and cargo were condemned. This sentence the Supreme Court reversed. The case was one chiefly of fact. It was alleged that the vessel was loitering with intent to seize an opportunity to run into Havana; that her usual lights were not displayed, and that she was out of her proper course. These allegations were disputed, and the court was unwilling, upon the mere concurrence of a number of "suspicious circumstances," each one of which "standing alone" could be "explained," to hold that guilt was established. The court below, in discussing the proof of loitering, observed that it fell "very far short" of the inculpatory evidence in the cases of certain sailing vessels, which the Government had cited. as precedents for condemnation; but suggested that proof less full and precise might be accepted in the case of steam vessels, owing to their superior power of movement. "Undoubtedly there is a difference," said the Supreme Court, "but if steam has increased the power of blockade runners, it has increased in greater degree, when conjoined with the range of modern ordnance, the power of blockade defenders. We recently had occasion to consider their power, and decide that a single modern cruiser might make a blockade effective." It was ordered that the vessel and cargo be restored, but without costs or damages. The Newfoundland (1900), 176 U. S. 97; citing the Olinde Rodriguez, supra. The case of the Newfoundland in the court below is reported in 89 Fed. 5. DESTINATION. $ 1276. See, as to "Continuous voyages," supra, § 1180. Destination alone justifies seizure and condemnation of ship and cargo in voyage to ports under blockade; and such destination justifies equally seizure of contraband in voyage to ports not under blockade; but in the latter case the ship, and cargo, not contraband, are free from seizure, except in cases of fraud or bad faith. The Bermuda, 3 Wall. 514. For a criticism of this case, see 3 Phillimore Int. Law (3d ed.), 460. A vessel destined for a neutral port with no ulterior destination for herself, and none by sea for her cargo, to a blockaded place, violates no blockade. The Peterhoff, 5 Wall. 28. As to the case, see 3 Phillimore Int. Law (3d ed.), 395, 479. A cargo shipped from a neutral country by neutrals resident there, and destined ostensibly to a neutral port, was restored with costs after capture in a suspicious region, and where the vessel on its outward voyage had violated a blockade; there having been nothing to fix on the neutrals themselves any connection with the ownership or outward voyage of the vessel (which was itself condemned), nor anything to prove that their purposes were not lawful. But a certain portion of the cargo, which had been shipped like the rest, except that the shipper was a merchant residing and doing business in the enemy's country, was condemned. The Flying Scud, 6 Wall. 263. A vessel was condemned for intended breach of the blockade of the southern coast, having been found near Great Abaco Island, with no destination sufficiently proved, without sufficient documents, with a cargo of which much the largest part consisted of contraband of war, and with many letters addressed to one of the blockaded ports, for which her chief officer declared that she meant to run. The Adela, 6 Wall. 266. 6. EGRESS. § 1277. "As to violating a blockade by coming out with a cargo, the time of shipment is very material, for although it might be hard to refuse a neutral liberty to retire with a cargo already laden, and by that act already become neutral property; yet, after the commencement of a blockade, a neutral cannot be allowed to interpose in any way to assist the exportation of the property of the enemy. After the commencement of the blockade, a neutral is no longer at liberty to make any purchase in that port. The Betsey, 1 Rob. 93; The Frederick Molke, id. 72; The Neptunus, id. 170. A neutral ship departing can only take away a cargo bonâ fide purchased and delivered before the commencement of the blockade: if she afterwards take on board a cargo, it is a violation of the blockade. The Vrouw Judith, id. 1 Rob. 150; The Rolla, 6 Rob. 364. Where a ship was transferred from one neutral merchant to another in a blockaded port, and sailed out in ballast, she was determined not to have violated the blockade. The Potsdam, 4 Rob. 89; The Juffrouw Maria Schroeder, id. note (a). But a ship which had been purchased by a neutral of the enemy in a blockaded port, and sailed from thence on a voyage to the neutral country, was held liable to condemnation. The General Hamilton, 6 Rob. 61. And where the vessel was captured on a voyage to the blockaded port, in ballast, she having sailed for the purpose of bringing away goods which had become the property of neutral merchants before the date of the blockade, she was held liable to condemnation. The rule of blockade permits an egress to ships innocently in the port before the restriction was imposed, and even with cargoes, if previously laden; but in the case of ingress, there is not the same reason for indulgence; there can be no surprise upon the parties, and, therefore, nothing short of a physical necessity is admitted as an adequate excuse for making the attempt of entry. The Comet, Edwards, 32. A marine blockade is not violated by sending goods to the blockaded port, or by bringing them from the same, through the interior canal navigation of the country. A mere maritime blockade, effected by a force operating only at sea, can have no operation upon the interior communications of the port. The Ocean, 3 Rob. 297; The Stert, 4 Rob. 65. But goods shipped in a river, having been previously sent in lighters along the coast from the blockaded port, and under charter-party with the ship proceeding also from the blockaded port in ballast to take them on board, were held liable to confiscation. The Maria, 6 Rob. 201. The penalty for a breach of blockade is remitted by the raising of the blockade between the time of sailing from the port and the capture. When the blockade is raised, a veil is thrown over every thing that has been done, and the vessel is no longer taken in delicto. The delictum completed at one period is by subsequent events entirely done away. The Lisette, 6 Rob. 387. A neutral ship coming out of a blockaded port in consequence of a rumour that hostilities were likely to take place between the enemy and the country to which the ship belongs is not liable to condemnation, though laden with a cargo, where the regulations of the enemy would not permit a departure in ballast. The Drie Vrienden, Dodson, 269. But the danger of seizure and confiscation by the enemy, must be immediate and pressing. The mere apprehension of possible and remote danger will not justify bringing a cargo out of a blockaded port. The Wasser Hundt, id. 270, note.” Note of Wheaton to Olivera v. Union Ins. Co. (1818), 3 Wheaton, 183, 196, 198. "Now, with respect to the matter of blockade, I must observe, that a blockade is just as much violated by a vessel passing outwards as inwards. A blockade is a sort of circumvallation round a place, by which all foreign connexion and correspondence is, as far as human force can effect it, to be entirely cut off. It is intended to suspend the entire commerce of that place; and a neutral is no more at liberty to assist the traffic of exportation than of importation. The utmost that can be allowed to a neutral vessel is, that having already taken on board a cargo before the blockade begins, she may be at liberty to retire with it. But it must be considered as a rule which this court means to apply: that a neutral ship departing, can only take away a cargo bonâ fide, purchased and delivered, before the commencement of the blockade: if she afterward takes on board a cargo, it is a fraudulent act, and a violation of the blockade.” Sir William Scott, in the case of The Vrouw Judith, 1 C. Rob. 151. Cited, also, in Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Mason, min. to France, |