Court
District Court for the Southern District of New York
Decided
Judge
The CHIEF JUSTICE
Posture
District Court condemned vessel and cargo as lawful prize of war
Claimants/Appellantss (4)
Jarman (representing owners of steamer and cargo), Redgate, Almond
Messrs. Marvin, Sherwood, and A. F. Smith
v.
Libellant/Appellee (1)
United States
Mr. Coffey, special counsel, and Mr. Ashton, Assistant A. G.
Other parties: Redgate — Owner, agent, and consignee of portion of cargo, Almond — Owner, agent, and consignee of portion of cargo
Overview
Decree of District Court reversed in part; contraband portions of cargo condemned; non-contraband portions restored; ship restored but must pay costs and expenses; remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion.
Case summary
The Peterhoff, a British merchant steamer, was captured in 1863 during the American Civil War while documented for a voyage from London to Matamoras, Mexico. The United States alleged the vessel intended to violate the blockade of Southern States and carried contraband. The Supreme Court held that the mouth of the Rio Grande was not included in the blockade, as it was half in Mexican territory with treaty-guaranteed navigation rights. Trade with Matamoras, even with intent to supply Texas by inland conveyance, was lawful. However, portions of the cargo (artillery harness, army boots, etc.) were contraband destined for rebel forces and subject to condemnation, along with other cargo owned by the same owner. The captain's conduct in refusing papers and destroying a package warranted costs against the ship but not condemnation. The Court reversed the District Court's condemnation of vessel and most cargo, but affirmed condemnation of contraband portions.
Abstract
A neutral merchant vessel was captured on suspicion of violating a wartime blockade and carrying contraband destined for rebel forces, despite being documented for a lawful voyage to a neutral Mexican port with guaranteed navigation rights. The court held that trade to the port was permissible even if goods might be transshipped inland, but condemned specific contraband cargo items like artillery harness and army boots while restoring the vessel and non-contraband cargo. The captain's obstructive conduct warranted costs against the ship, leading to reversal of the lower court's full condemnation and remand for partial enforcement.
Opinion of the court
Majority
opinionThe CHIEF JUSTICEjoined by Full Court
opinionThe CHIEF JUSTICEjoined by Full Court
- Blockade cannot be extended by construction
- Rio Grande mouth not blockaded due to Mexican territory and treaty rights
- Neutral trade with Matamoras free except for contraband
- Contraband classification into three categories
- Contraband contaminates non-contraband of same owner
- Captain's conduct warrants costs but not condemnation
Jurisdiction
not challengedSubject matter
Prize case arising from capture during the American Civil War, involving international law of blockade and contraband
Jurisdictional facts
- Appeal from decree of District Court condemning vessel and cargo as prize of war
- Case involves interpretation of blockade proclamations and treaties
Procedural posture
Posture at trial
District Court condemned vessel and cargo as lawful prize of war
Posture on appeal
Direct appeal from District Court decree
Preserved issues
- Whether mouth of Rio Grande was included in blockade
- Whether cargo destined for blockade violation
- Whether portions were contraband
- Status of Redgate as enemy
- Conduct of captain regarding papers
Legal categories
Business
Case record
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Trial court
District Court for the Southern District of New York
Trial court judge
Not specified
Decided
Opinion author
The CHIEF JUSTICE
Opinion type
published
Precedential status
precedential
Judges on panel
The CHIEF JUSTICE
Issues & holdings
5
Issues raised
3
reversed
1
affirmed in part
1
modified
5
Holdings
1
Whether the mouth of the Rio Grande was included in the blockade of the rebel States
reversed
Standard of review
de novo
Disposition rationale
Mouth of Rio Grande not included in blockade; neutral commerce with Matamoras free except for contraband
Preservation
Issue preserved for review
2
Whether trade between London and Matamoras with intent to supply Texas violated blockade
reversed
Standard of review
de novo
Disposition rationale
Trade with neutral port not unlawful even with intent to supply belligerent by inland conveyance
Preservation
Issue preserved for review
3
Whether any portion of cargo was contraband
affirmed in part
Standard of review
de novo
Disposition rationale
Artillery harness, army boots, artillery boots, government regulation gray blankets were contraband destined for rebel forces
Preservation
Issue preserved for review
4
Whether Redgate was an enemy and his property liable to confiscation
reversed
Standard of review
de novo
Disposition rationale
Redgate not enemy as he escaped from Texas and resided in neutral country
Preservation
Issue preserved for review
5
Whether captain's conduct regarding papers and destruction of package warranted condemnation or costs
modified
Standard of review
de novo
Disposition rationale
Conduct did not warrant condemnation but ship must pay costs and expenses
Preservation
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Blockade of Rio Grande
Mouth of Rio Grande was not included in blockade of rebel States; neutral commerce with Matamoras free except for contraband
Blockade not to be extended by construction; Rio Grande half in Mexican territory with treaty guaranteeing free navigation; no express declaration blockading river; belligerent cannot blockade river mouth occupied on one bank by neutrals with navigation rights
unanimousbinding precedent
Trade with intent to supply belligerent
Trade between London and Matamoras, even with intent to supply Texas, did not violate blockade
Vessel destined for neutral port with no ulterior destination by sea to blockaded place; inland trade from Matamoras to Texas not affected by maritime blockade; distinguishes from The Bermuda where cargo could not reach ulterior destination without violating blockade
unanimousbinding precedent
Contraband classification
Artillery harness, army bluchers, artillery boots, government regulation gray blankets were contraband destined for rebel military use
Goods primarily and ordinarily used for military purposes; destined for rebel forces despite primary destination to Matamoras; contraband always unlawful when destined to enemy military use
unanimousbinding precedent
Contamination of cargo
Contraband articles contaminate non-contraband portions belonging to same owner
Established rule that contraband is infectious and contaminates whole cargo of same owner
unanimousbinding precedent
Captain's conduct
Captain's refusal to send papers and destruction of package did not warrant condemnation but required payment of costs by ship
Conduct inconsistent with frankness and good faith required of neutrals; but vessel destined to neutral port with mostly neutral cargo
unanimousbinding precedent
Error analysis
- District Court erred in finding mouth of Rio Grande blockaded — legal · error foundNot harmless as affected entire condemnation · not harmless
- District Court erred in condemning non-contraband cargo — legal · error foundError required reversal for non-contraband portions · not harmless
Statutory interpretation
2Statute
President's blockade proclamations
Question
Whether included mouth of Rio Grande
Court's reading
Did not include river mouth absent express declaration
Canons applied
Strict construction against extending blockadeConsideration of treaty rights
Statute
Treaty with Mexico regarding Rio Grande
Question
Navigation rights and boundary
Court's reading
River half in Mexican territory with free navigation for both nations
Canons applied
Plain meaningTreaty as binding law
Burden of proof
Prosecution burden
Preponderance of evidence in prize cases
Burden met
true
Standards of review
- Interpretation of blockade and international law — de novo Questions of law regarding blockade interpretation and international law principles reviewed de novo
- Contraband classification and destination — de novo Classification of goods as contraband and determination of destination are legal questions
- Factual findings regarding conduct — clearly erroneous Factual findings regarding captain's conduct reviewed for clear error
Timeline
Procedural path
Blockade proclamationVessel capturePapers refusalBlockade relaxation
4
Events
670
Days, incident to ruling
—
Span
procedural eventcited in opinion
President's proclamation declaring blockade of Southern States from Chesapeake Bay to Rio Grande
Established blockade that is central to case
Whether mouth of Rio Grande was included in blockade
factual eventcited in opinion
Peterhoff captured by USS Vanderbilt near St. Thomas, West Indies
Initiation of prize case
All issues on appeal
factual eventcited in opinion
Captain refused to send papers to Vanderbilt, citing British mail on board; package thrown overboard
Conduct considered in costs and expenses determination
Captain's conduct and liability for costs
procedural eventcited in opinion
President's proclamation relaxing blockade, reciting that Brownsville had been blockaded
Cited as evidence of blockade interpretation
Whether mouth of Rio Grande was included in blockade
Facts & evidence
Incident
Date
Location
Near St. Thomas, West Indies (Caribbean Sea south of Cuba)
Key facts
10 facts- British merchant steamer Peterhoff captured by USS Vanderbilt on Feb 25, 1863
- Documented voyage from London to Matamoras, Mexico
- Cargo valued at $650,000, miscellaneous with military items
- Matamoras located on Mexican bank of Rio Grande, opposite Brownsville, Texas
- During Civil War, Matamoras became major trade center with Texas
- Vessel drew 16 feet water, could not enter Rio Grande due to bar
- Cargo to be delivered into lighters off mouth of Rio Grande
- Captain refused to send papers to Vanderbilt, citing British mail
- Package thrown overboard during capture
- Federal government had granted clearances from New York to Matamoras during war
Procedural history
4 steps- Peterhoff captured Feb 25, 1863
- Libelled in District Court for Southern District of New York
- District Court condemned vessel and cargo
- Appeal to Supreme Court
Evidence in the record
Direct
- Manifest, shipping list, clearance papers showing London to Matamoras
- Bills of lading specifying delivery off Rio Grande into lighters for Matamoras
- Testimony of Redgate, Bowden, Almond regarding market destination
Physical
- Artillery harness sets
- Army bluchers/boots
- Government regulation gray blankets
- Horseshoes and nails
- Drugs including quinine
Testimonial
- Captain's testimony about package
- Seamen testimony about package thrown overboard
- Redgate's statement of opposition to secession
Documentary
- President's blockade proclamations
- Treaty with Mexico regarding Rio Grande
- Clearances granted from New York to Matamoras
Circumstantial
- Character of cargo suitable for military use
- Matamoras' proximity to Texas and increased trade during war
- Captain's refusal to send papers and destruction of package
Challenged
- Evidence type: Package thrown overboard · Challenge basis: Spoliation of evidence · Trial court ruling: Considered in condemnation · Reasoning: Captain claimed it contained white powder; witnesses described as papers/despatches · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed
Jury
Verdict
Not applicable - prize case decided by court
Sentencing
Sentence imposed
Condemnation of contraband portions of cargo; restoration of vessel and non-contraband cargo with payment of costs
Sentence type
discretionary
Objects of relevance
Artillery harness setsArmy boots and blanketsPackage thrown overboard during capture
Policy considerations
- Balance between belligerent rights and neutral commerce
- Practical difficulties of blockading rivers with neutral banks
- Need for clear declarations in blockade proclamations
- Importance of frank conduct by neutral vessels
Authorities
Cited authorities (4)
The Bermuda
distinguisheddistinguishedCited for principle that ulterior destination to blockaded port infects primary voyage
The Frau Usabe
followedprecedentCited as precedent that river not included in blockade without express declaration
The Maria
distinguisheddistinguishedCited by government but distinguished as both banks of Weser held by enemy
The Zelden Rust
distinguisheddistinguishedCited by government but distinguished as involving contraband not blockade, both ports belligerent
Related cases (4)
The Bermuda
prior appealDistinguished - involved direct or substitution voyage to blockaded port
The Frau Usabe
precedentFollowed - Scheldt not included in blockade of Holland without express declaration
The Maria
precedentDistinguished - both banks of Weser held by enemy
The Zelden Rust
precedentDistinguished - involved contraband not blockade, both ports belligerent
Statutes
- President's blockade proclamations of 1862 and 1864
- Treaty with Mexico regarding Rio Grande navigation
Standards & doctrines
- Blockade extension by construction prohibited
- Contraband classification doctrine
- Contamination doctrine for contraband
Legal principles applied
- Blockade cannot be extended by construction
- Belligerent cannot blockade river mouth occupied on one bank by neutrals with navigation rights
- Contraband contaminates non-contraband of same owner
Notable quotes
“A blockade is not to be extended by construction.”majority — Discussing whether mouth of Rio Grande was included in blockadeEstablishes principle of strict construction for blockades
“We administer the public law of nations, and are not at liberty to inquire what is for the particular advantage or disadvantage of our own or another country.”majority — Addressing inconvenience of trade through Matamoras to TexasEmphasizes court's role in applying neutral principles of international law
“Contraband articles are infectious, as it is called, and contaminate the whole cargo belonging to the same owners.”majority — Quoting Chancellor Kent on contraband contaminationStates established rule of contraband infection
Index terms104
Summary terms
Legal mechanisms
Various actions
Various actors
Legal concepts
Legal outcomes
Legal issues
Legal procedures
Legal remedies
Legal evidence
Legal arguments
Legal defenses
Legal penalties
Legal procedural steps
Geo locations
Judges
Attorneys
Procedural terms
Substantive offenses
Entities and documentation
Legal actions
Action type
reversed in part
Target
District Court decree condemning vessel and cargo
Appealed from
District Court for Southern District of New York
Context
Supreme Court reversed condemnation of vessel and non-contraband cargo, but affirmed condemnation of contraband portions
Scope
in part
Further instructions
Remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion
Disposition vote
unanimous
Action type
affirmed in part
Target
Condemnation of contraband portions of cargo
Appealed from
District Court for Southern District of New York
Context
Supreme Court affirmed condemnation of artillery harness, army boots, artillery boots, government regulation gray blankets as contraband
Scope
in part
Disposition vote
unanimous
Search facets
Parties
Courts
Locations
Practice areas
Other index terms