45. American merchants domiciled for commercial purposes at Valpa raiso cannot sustain a claim for indemnity against Spain or Chili for losses of merchandise in the conflagration caused by the bombardment of Valparaiso by the Spanish fleet in March, 1866. 46. Upon the facts of the case as to the steamship R. R. Cuyler, it appears that this vessel was prematurely and without probable cause libeled for violation of the neutrality laws; and she should be released on the owners giving the bond required by section 10 of the act of 1818. (3 Stat., 449; R. S., § 5289.) The R. R. Cuyler, 12 Op., 113, Stanbery, (1567.) 47. Judicial proceedings should not be instituted by the United States under section 3 of the act of 1818 (3 Stat., 448; R. S., § 5283) against certain gunboats building in New York for the Spanish government, and which, there is reason to believe, are to be employed by that government against Cuba. The provisions of that section examined and shown to be inapplicable, in view of all the circumstances, to the case under consideration. Neutrality act, 13 Op., 177, Hoar, (186)) 48. Proof that a vessel transported from Aspinwall to the coast of Cuba, men, arms, and munitions of war, destined to aid the Cuban insurgents, is insufficient by itself to warrant proceedings against such vessel for violation of the neutrality law of the United States. (R. S., § 5281, et seq.) Case of the Hornet, 13 Op., 541, Akerman, (1871) 49. The papers presented by the Secretary of State in the case of the steamer Virginius do not establish any violation of the neutrality laws, either by the owners of the steamer or by the persons engaged thereon. The Virginius, 14 Op., 49, Bristow, acting, (1572) 50. It is not a violation of the neutrality laws of the United States to sell to a foreigner a vessel built in this country, though suited to be a privateer, and having some equipments calculated for war but frequently used by merchant ships. Moodie vs. The Ship Alfred, 3 Dallas, 307. 51. Under article 19 of the treaty with France of 1778, (Pub. Trs., 209, annulled by act of 1798, 1 Stat., 578,) a French privateer has a right to make repairs in our ports. The replacement of her force is not an augmentation. Moodie vs. The Ship Phœbe Anne, 3 Dallas, 319. 52. If a capture be made by a privateer which had been illegally equipped in a neutral country, the prize-courts of such neutral country have power, and it is their duty, to restore the captured property, if brought within their jurisdiction, to its owner. Brig Alerta vs. Moran, 9 Cranch, 359. 53. Section 7 of the neutrality act of 1794 (1 Stat., 384, repealed) does not authorize the President to employ civil officers to make seiz ures. Gelston vs. Hoyt, 3 Wheaton, 246. 51. A capture made within the neutral territory is, as between the belligerents, rightful; and its validity can only be questioned by the neutral state. The Anne, 3 Wheaton, 435. 55. If the captured vessel commence hostilities upon the captor, she forfeits the neutral protection, and the capture is not an injury for which redress can be sought from the neutral sovereign. Ib. 56. The treaty with Spain of 1795 (Pub. Trs., 706) requires restoration of captures in only two cases, piracy and captures in violation of our neutrality. The Nuestra Señora de la Caridad, 4 Wheaton, 497. 57. In cases of violation of our neutrality by any of the belligerents, if the prize comes voluntarily within our territory, it is restored to the original owners by the courts. La Amistad de Rues, 5 Wheaton, 385. 58. But their jurisdiction for this purpose, under the law of nations, extends only to restitution of the specific property, with costs and expenses during the pendency of the suit, and does not extend to the infliction of vindictive damages or compensation for plunderage, as in ordinary cases of marine torts. Ib. 59. A capture of Spanish property, in violation of our neutrality, by a vessel built, armed, equipped, and owned in the United States, is illegal, and the property, if brought within our territorial limits, will be restored to the original owners. La Concepcion, 6 Wheaton, 235. 60. The cases of The Cassius (3 Dallas, 121) and The Invincible (1 Wheaton, 238) decide that neither a public vessel of another nation, nor its officers, are liable to answer in our courts for a capture on the high seas; but do not touch the jurisdiction over her prizes lying in our ports, which extends to libels in rem for restitution of such prizes made in violation of our neutrality. The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheaton, 283. 61. A foreign public vessel is exempted from the jurisdiction of our courts by an exception grounded on common usage and public policy; but this exception does not extend to her prizes, or captured goods landed here, which are liable to the jurisdiction of our courts for the purpose of inquiry and restitution, if a case therefor is made. 62. There is nothing in our laws or in the law of nations that forbids our citizens from sending armed vessels, as well as munitions of war, to foreign ports for sale. Ib., [342] 63. An augmentation of the force of a foreign belligerent vessel in a port of the United States, we being neutral, by a substantial increase of her crew, is a breach of our neutrality. I 64. A capture made by a belligerent, whose force had been augmented in violation of our neutrality laws during the cruise immediately succeeding such violation, presents a case for restitution by our courts. 65. It is firmly settled that, if captures are made by vessels which have violated our neutrality laws, the property may be restored if brought within our territory. The Gran Para, 7 Wheaton, 471. 66. This court has never decided that the offense (of fitting out, &c., in violation of the neutrality acts) adheres to the vessel, whatever changes may have taken place, and cannot be deposited at the termination of the cruise in preparing for which it was committed; and, as the Irresistible made no prize on her passage from Baltimore to the river La Plata, it is contended that her offense was deposited there, and that the court cannot connect her subsequent cruise with the transactions of Baltimore. The Gran Para, 7 Wheaton, 471, [487] 67. If this were to be admitted in such a case as this, the laws for the preservation of our neutrality would be completely eluded, so far as this enforcement depends on the restitution of prizes made in violation of them. Vessels completely fitted in our ports for military operations need only sail to a belligerent port, and there, after obtaining a commission, go through the ceremony of discharging and re-enlisting their crews to become perfectly legiti mate cruisers, purified from every taint contracted at the place where all their real force and capacity for annoyance was ac quired. This would, indeed, be a fraudulent neutrality, disgraceful to our own Government, and of which no nation would be the dupe. It is impossible for a moment to disguise the facts, that the arms and ammunition taken on board the Irresistible at Baltimore were taken for the purpose of being used on a cruise, and that the men there enlisted, though engaged, in form, as for a commercial voyage, were not so engaged in fact. There was no commercial voyage, and no individual of the crew could believe that there was one. GS. If property captured in violation of our neutrality laws is found in the hands of the master of the capturing vessel, it is immaterial whether a condemnation has intervened, or what changes of title have occurred. The Arrogante Barcelones, 7 Wheaton, 496. 69. Captures by vessels fitted out in the United States, in violation of neutrality, held illegal when the property is brought within our jurisdiction. The Fanny, 9 Wheaton, 658, [668.] 70. Where a person was indicted under the third section of the act of 1818 (3 Stat., 448; R. S., § 5283) with being knowingly concerned in the fitting out of a vessel with intent to employ her in the service of a foreign people, viz, the United Provinces of Buenos Ayres, against the subjects of the Emperor of Brazil, with whom the United States are at peace: Held, that to bring the defendant within the act, either fitting out or arming will constitute an of fense. United States vs. Quincy, 6 Peters, 445. 71. It is not necessary that the vessel, when she left a port of the United States for a foreign port, and during her passage, and when she arrived at the foreign port, should be armed and in condition for hostilities, to constitute an offense. Ib. 72. The preparations to commit hostilities must be made within the United States, and the intention with respect to the employment of the vessel must be formed before she leaves the United States. Ib. 73. The law does not prohibit armed vessels belonging to citizens of the United States from sailing, it only requires the owners to give security. Collectors are not authorized to detain vessels built for warlike purposes and about to depart, unless circumstances render it probable that they are to be employed in violation of the act. Ib. 74. A contract by an inhabitant of Texas to convey land in that country to citizens of the United States in consideration of advances of money made by them in the State of Ohio, to enable him to raise men and procure arms to carry on the war with Mexico, the independence of Texas not having been at that time acknowledged by the United States, was contrary to our national obligations to Mexico, violated the public policy of the United States, and cannot be specifically enforced by a court of the United States. Kennett vs. Chambers, 14 Howard, 38. 75. An American citizen may, under the modern usage of nations, enter either the land or naval service of a foreign government without compromising the neutrality of his own. The Santissima Trinidad, 1 Brockenbrough, 47%. 76. It is not a crime, under the neutrality law, to leave this country with intent to enlist in foreign military service. The United States vs. Louis Kazinski, 2 Sprague, 7. 77. It is not a crime to transport persons out of the country with their own consent who have an intention of so enlisting. Л 78. To constitute a crime under the statute, such person must be hired or retained to go abroad with the intent to be so enlisted. 79. Where an officer belonging to a military force ordered out by the President under the 8th section of the act of March 10, 1838, (5 Stat., 214,) and, instructed by his commanding officer, seized property as a precautionary measure, to prevent an intended violation of the act, that it might be detained until an officer having power to seize and hold it under the statute should arrive: Held the seizure was lawful. Stoughton vs. Dimick, 3 Blatchford, 356, 80. The landing of a cargo contraband of war, on the shore of the country of one belligerent, at a point not blockaded, is not an act of hostility against the other belligerent. The Florida, 4 Benedict, 432 81. Section 6 of the neutrality act of 1818, (3 Stat., 449; R. S., § 5286, punishing the offenses of beginning or setting on foot, or providing or preparing the means for a military expedition or enterprise for the invasion of a country with which the United States is at peace. is not violated without the commission of an overt or definite act. United States vs. Lumsden, 1 Bord, 5 82. If the means provided were procured to be used on the occurrence of a future contingent event, no liability is incurred under the statute. I 83. If the intention is that the means provided shall only be used at a time and under circumstances when they could be used without a violation of law, no criminality attaches to the act. |