54: » I · FEDERAL marosrrm. ~
l Savannah,·Charleston, Norfolk`, or New York, and employed, on a
contingent compensation, to effect the raising. It will not do in an
, admiralty court, accustomed to the trial of wrecking and salvage cases,
to insist that a sensible man would content himself with purchasing
a single steam-tug (an instrument of most subordinate utility in such
an enterprise) in the expectation of raising with it an ocean steam-
ship from the bottom of a harbor. Sunken vessels are not raised by
steam-tugs. All the apparatus of professional wreckers is required »
for the purpose. A court will generally make charitable presump-
tions in favor of accused persons, where there is a question of forfeit-
ure, but I find myself unable to accept the presumption that a steam-
tug was bought in New York at a cost of $12,000 for the purpose of
raising asteam-ship from the bottom of the harbor of Antonio, Ja-
maica, which cost only .£500, and was to be sent out for that purpose
without a particle of wrecking apparatus on board, except some sort
of windlass, but loaded down with military guns and ammunition.
The Hogan bore less than two feet of free-board. A cargo of 20 or
30 tons, which was the weight of these munitions, would have put.
down her deck to within 12 inches of the water. Even on a smooth
July sea, a voyage to the West Indies would have been a desperate `
A commercial venture, and yet we hear nothing of insurance either upon
vessel or cargo. Commercially, the enterprise would have been reck-
less. As a military venture, it was no more desperate than military
raids usually are, especially upon the high seas. In short, it is im-
possible to read the evidence in these cases, in a judicial spirit, with-
out being impressed with the irresistible conviction that the Hogan
was bought and prepared in New York for the purpose of being sent
directly to Hayti, with cannons, gun-carriages, small-arms, ammuni-
tion, and powder, which were to be taken on board at some point
on the coast from some other vessel, and with this armament was in--
tended to be used as a gun-boat in the waters of Hayti, in aid of the
insurrectionists of that island, against that republic. Technically,
this question comes to me as res adjudicata under the decree of the-
district court of the Southern district of New York, rendered on the
twenty-third of November, 1883. Actually, it is proved to me by-
evidence which leaves room for no other conclusion.
I come, therefore, to the additional questions on which the cases at
bar depend, namely: First, whether or not the military material which
is the subject of these libels was intended to be sent out as merchan·
dise, in a commercial venture, and destined to some point in the West
Indies for sale as merchandise. If not, whether this military material
was intended to be sent directly to Hayti, as the military outfit of the
gun-boat Hogan, for use in the hostile and insurrectionary enterprise—
for which that vessel was destined. No principle of the law is more
clear or well settled than that merchandisaiincluding munitions of`
war, may be sold to belligerents withoutviolating the laws of neutral-
ity. If those munitions had been sent on a vessel of commerce, which