The Olinde Rodrigues

after making the above statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

We are unable to concur with the learned District Judge in the conclusion that the blockade .of the port of San Juan at the time this steamship was captured was not an effective blockade.

. To be binding, the blockade must be known, and the blockading force must be- present; but is there any rule of law determining that the presence of a particular force is essential in order to render a blockade effective % We do not think so, but on the contrary, that the test is whether the blockade is practically effective, and that that is a question, though a mixed one, more of fact than of law.

The fourth maxim of the Declaration of Paris, (April 16, 1856,) was: “ Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really .to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.” Manifestly this broad definition was not intended to be literally applied.

This was put by Lord Russell in his note to Mr. Mason of February 10, 1861, thus: “The Declaration of Paris was in truth directed against what were once termed ‘paper blockades ; ’ that is, blockades not sustained by any actual force, or sustained by a notoriously inadequate naval force, such as an occasional appearance of a man-of-war in the offing or • the like. . . . The interpretation, therefore, placed by Her Majesty’s government on the Declaration was, that a blockade, in order to be respected by neutrals, must be practically effective. . . . It is proper to add, that the same view of the meaning and effect of the articles of the Declaration of Paris, on the subject of blockades, which is above explained, was taken by the representative of the United States at the Court of St. James (Mr. Dallas) during the communications which passed between the two governments some years before the present war, with a view to the accession of the United States to that Declaration.” Hall’s Int. Law, § 260, p. 730, note.

The quotations from the Parliamentary debates, of May, 1861, given by Mr. Dana in note 233 to the eighth edition of Wheaton on International Law, afford interesting illustrations of what was considered the measure of effectiveness; and an extract is also there given from a note of the Department of Foreign Affairs of France of September, 1861, in which that is defined: “ Forces sufficient to prevent the ports being approached without exposure to a certain danger.”

In The Mercurius, 1 C. Rob. 80 , 84, Sir William Scott stated: “ It is said, this passage to the Zuyder Zee was not in a state of blockade; but the ship was seized immediately on entering it; and I know not what else is necessary to constitute blockade. The powers who formed the armed neutrality in the last war, understood blockade in this sense; and

And in The Frederick Molke, 1 C. Rob. 86 , the same great jurist said: “For that a legal blockade did exist, results necessarily from these facts, as nothing farther is necessary •to constitute blockade, than that there should be a force stationed to prevent communication, and a due notice, or prohibition given to the party.”

Such is the settled doctrine of the English and American courts and publicists, and it is embodied in the second of the instructions issued by the Secretary of the Navy, June 20, 1898, General Order No. 492: “A blockade to be effective and binding must be maintained by a force sufficient to render ingress to or egress from the port dangerous.”

Clearly, however, it is not practicable to define what degree of danger shall constitute a test of the efficiency and validity of a blockade. It is enough if the danger is real and apparent.

In The Franciska, 2 Spinks, 128, Dr. Lushington, in passing on the question whether the blockade imposed on the port of Eiga was an effective blockade, said: “ What, then, is an efficient blockade, and how has it been defined, if, indeed, the term ‘ definition ’ can be applied to such a subject ? The one definition mentioned is, that egress or entrance shall be attended with evident danger; another, that of Chancellor Kent, (1 Kent’s Com. 146,) is, that it shall be apparently dangerous. All these definitions are and must be, from the nature of blockades, loose and uncertain; the maintenance of a blockade must always be a question of degree, — of the degree of danger attending ships going into or leaving a blockaded port. Nothing is further from my intention, nor, indeed, more opposed to my notions of the Law of Nations, than aity relaxation of the rule that a blockade must be efficiently maintained; but it is perfectly obvious that no force could bar the entrance to absolute certainty; that vessels may get in and get out during the night, or fogs, or violent winds, or occasional absence; that it is most difficult to judge from numbers alone.”

“ It is impossible,” says Mr. Hall, (§ 260,) “ to fix with any accuracy the amount of danger in entry which is necessary to preserve the validity of a blockade. It is for the prize courts of the belligerent to decide whether in a given instance a vessel captured for its breach had reason to suppose it to be non-existent; or for the neutral government to examine, on the particular facts, whether it is proper to withhold or to withdraw recognition.”

In The Hoffnung, 6 C. Rob. 112 , 117, Sir William Scott said : “When a squadron is driven off by accidents of weather, which must have entered into the contemplation of the belligerent imposing the blockade, there is no reason to suppose that such a circumstance would create a change of system, since it could not be expected that any blockade would continue many months, without being liable to such temporary interruptions. But when a squadron is driven off by a superior force, a new course of events arises, which may tend to a very different disposition of the blockading force, and which introduces therefore a very different train of presumptions, in favor of the ordinary freedom of commercial speculations. In such a case the' neutral merchant is not bound to foresee or to conjecture that the blockade will be resumed.” And undoubtedly a blockade may be so inadequate, or the negligence of the belligerent in maintaining it may be of such .a character, as to excuse neutral vessels from the penalties for its violation. Thus in the case of an alleged breach of the blockade of the island of Martinique, which had been carried on by a number of vessels on the different stations, so communicating with each other as to be able to intercept all vessels attempting to enter the ports of the island, it was held that their withdrawal was a neglect which “ necessarily led neutral vessels to believe these ports might be entered without incurring any risk.” The Nancy, 1 Acton, 57, 59.

But it cannot be that a' vessel actually captured in attempting to enter a blockaded port, after "warning entered on her log. by a cruiser off that port only a few days before, could dispute the efficiency of the force to which she was subjected.

As we hold that an effective blockade is a blockade so effec

Even as long ago as 1809, in The Nancy, 1 Acton, 63, where the station of the vessel was sometimes off the port of Trinity and, at others, off another port more than seven miles distant, it was ruled that: “ Under particular circumstances a single vessel may be adequate to maintain the blockade of one port and cooperate with other vessels at the same time in the blockade of another neighboring port; ” although there Sir "William Grant relied on the opinion of the commander on that station that the force was completely adequate to the service required to be performed.

The ruling of Dr. Lushington in The Franciska, above cited, was to that effect, and the text books refer to other instances.

The learned District Judge, in his opinion, refers to the treaty between France and Denmark of 1742, which provided that the entrance to ¿ blockaded port should be closed by at least two vessels or a battery on shore; to the treaty of 1760 between Holland and the Two Sicilies prescribing that at least six ships of war should be ranged at a distance slightly greater than gunshot from the entrance; and to the treaty between Prussia and Denmark of 1818, which stipulated that two vessels should be stationed before every blockaded port; but we do not think these particular agreements of special importance here, and, indeed, Ortolan, by whom they are cited, says that such stipulations cannot create a positive rule in all cases even between the parties, “ since the number of vessels necessary to a complete investment depends evidently on the nature of the place blockaded.” 2 Ortolan, (4th ed.) 330, and note 2.

Nor do we regard Sir William Scott’s judgment in The Arthur, (1814) 1 Dodson, 423, 425, as of weight in favor of claimants. In effect the ruling sustained the validity of the maintenance rof blockade by a single ship, and the case was thus stated : “ This is a claim made by one of His Majesty’s

Blockades are maritime blockades, or blockades by sea and land; and they may be either military or commercial, or may partake of the nature of both. The question of effectiveness must necessarily depend on the circumstances. "We agree that the fact of a single capture is not decisive of the effectiveness of a blockade, but the case made on this record does not rest on that ground.

We are of opinion that if a single modern cruiser blockading a port renders it in fact dangerous for other craft to enter the port, that is sufficient, since thereby the blockade is made practically effective.

What then were the facts as to the effectiveness'of the blockade in the case before us ? ■

In the proclamation of June 27, 1898, occurs this paragraph : “ The United States of America has instituted and will maintain an effective blockade of all the ports on the south coast of Cuba,' from Cape Frances to Cape Cruz, inclusive, and also of the port of San Juan, in the island of Porto Rico.” (Proclamation No. 11, 30 Stat. 34 .) The blockade thus announced was not of the coast of Porto Rico, but of the port

Assuming that the Olinde Rodrigues attempted to enter San Juan, July 17, there can be no question that it was dangerous for her to do so, as the result itself demonstrated. She had had actual warning twelve days before; no reason existed for the supposition that the blockade had been pretermitted or relaxed:

After the argument on the motion to discharge the vessel, application was made by counsel, for the claimant to the District Judge, by letter, that the Navy Department be requested to furnish the court with all letters or dispatches of the commanders of vessels blockading the port of San Juan in respect to the sufficiency of the force. And a motion was nmde in this court “ for an order authorizing the introduction into the record of the dispatches of Captain Sigsbee and Commander Davis,” dated June 27, 1898, and July 26, 1898, and published by the Navy Department in the “ Appendix to the Deport of the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation, 1898,” pp. 224, 225, 642.

To this the United States objected on the grounds that isolated statements transmitting official information to superior officers, and consisting largely of opinion and hearsay, were not competent evidence; that the claimants had been afforded the opportunity to offer - additional proof, and had not availed themselves thereof; that if the court desired to have these papers before it, then the Government should be permitted to define their meaning by counter proofs; and certain explanatory affidavits were, at the same time, tendered for consideration, if the motion were granted.

We need not specifically rule on the motion, or as to the. admissibility of either the dispatches or affidavits, as we are satisfied that the dispatches have no legitimate tendency to establish that the blockade was not effective so far as the exclusion of' trade from this port of the belligerent, whether in neutral or enemy’s trading ships, was concerned. This country has always recognized the essential difference between a military and a commercial blockade. The one deals with the exclusion of trade, and the other involves the consideration of armed conflict with the belligerent.- The necessity of a greater blockading force in the latter case than in the former is obvious. The difference is in kind, and in degree.

But we are considering the blockade of the port of San Juan and not of the coast, and while additional vessels to cruise about the island might be desirable in order that the blockade should be positively effective, we think it a sufficient compliance with the obligations of international law if the blockade made egress or ingress dangerous in fact, and that the suggestions of a zealous American naval commander, in anticipation of a conflict of armed forces before San Juan, that the blockade should be brought to the highest efficiency in a military as well as a commercial aspect, cannot be allowed to have the effect of showing that the blockade which did exist was, as to this vessel, ineffective in point of law.

And the letter of Commander Davis of the Dixie, of July 26, 1898, appears to us to have been written wholly from the standpoint of the efficiency of the blockade as a military blockade. He says: “ Captain Folger kept me through the night of the 24th, as he had information which led him to believe that an attack would be made on his ship during the night. There are in San Juan, Porto Eico, the Terror, torpedo gunboat ; the Isabella II,‘ cruiser; a torpedo boat, and a gunboat. There is also a German steamer, which is only waiting an opportunity to slip out.” ' And further: “ It is Captain Folger’s opinion that the enemy will attempt to raise the blockade of San Juan, and it is my opinion that he should be reenforced there with the least possible delay.”

In our judgment these naval officers did not doubt the effectiveness of the commercial blockade, and had simply in mind the desirability of rendering the blockade, as a military blockade, impregnable, by the possession of a force sufficient to successfully repel any hostile attack of the enemy’s fleet. The blockade was practically effective; had remained so; and was legal and binding, if not raised by an actual driving away of the blockading /force by the enemy; until the happening of which result the neutral trader had no. right to ask whether the blockade, as against the possible superiority of the enemy’s fleet, was or was not effective in a military sense.

On the proofs before us the case is this : The Olinde Rod-. rigues was a merchant vessel of 1675 tons, belonging to the Compagnie Gén érale Transa tlantique, engaged in the West India trade and receiving a subsidy from the French government for carrying its mails on an itinerary prescribed by the postal authorities. Her regular course was from Havre to St. Thomas, San Juan, Puerto Plata and some other ports, returning by the some ports to Havre. She sailed from Havre, June 16, and arrived at St. Thomas, July 3, and at San Juan the morning of July 4. The proclamation of the blockade of San. Juan was issued June 27, while she was on the sea. The United States cruiser Yosemite was on duty in those waters, blockading the port of San Juan, and when her commander sighted the Olinde Rodrigues coming from the eastward toward the port he made chase, but before reaching her she' had turned in and was under the protection

The ship’s master further testified that on the outward voyage at each port he had warned the agent of the company and the postal department that he would not touch at Porto Rico, that he would not take passengers for that point, and that the letters would be returned to St. Thomas, and that having received his clearance papers at Puerto Plata at half-past five o’clock on the evening of July 15, he did not leave until six o’clock in the morning of July 16, as he did not wish to find himself at night along the coast of Porto Rico.

The ship was a large and valuable one, belonging to a great steamship company of world-wide reputation; she was on her return voyage laden with tobacco, sugar, coffee and other products of that region; she had no cargo, passengers or mail for

The only possible motive which could be or is assigned for her to attempt to break the blockade is that the consignee at San Juan cabled the captain at Cape Háytien that he. must stop at San Juan and take fifty first class passengers. At this time the fleet of Admiral Cervera had been destroyed ; Santiago had fallen; and the long reign of Spain in the Antilles was drawing to an end. Doubtless the transportation of fifty first class passengers would prove remunerative, especially as some of them might be Spanish officials, and Spanish archives and records, and Spanish treasure, might accompany them if they- escaped on the ship. It is forcibly argued that these are reasonable inferences, and afforded a sufficient motive for the commission of the offence. But as, where the guilty intent is established, the lack of motive cannot in itself overthrow it, so-the presence of motive is not in itself sufficient to supply the lack of evidence of intent. Now, in this case, the captain not only testified that h.e answered the cable to the effect that "he should not stop at San J uan, but the purser explicitly stated that the agent at Cape Haytien sent the telegram for the captain, specifically notifying the agent at San Juan that the ship would not stop there, the blockade having been notified. It is true, that the cablegram was not produced, but this was not to be expected in taking the depositions in preparatorio, and particularly as it was not the captain’s own cablegram, but that of the agent at Cape Haytien. There is nothing in the evidence to the contrary, and under the liberality of the rules of evidence in the administration of the civil law, we must take this as. we find it, and, as it stands, the argument that a temptation was held out is answered by the evidence that it was resisted.

Among the papers delivered to the prize master were certain bills of health, five of them by consuls of France, namely, July 9, from St. Marc, Haiti, giving the ship’s destination as Havre, with intermediate ports; July 11, from Gonaives, Haiti, giving no destination; July 13, from Port au Prince, July 14, from Cape Haytien, July 15, from Puerto Plata, all naming Havre as the destination; and three by consuls of Denmark, July 13, from Port au Prince, July 14, from Cape Haytien, and July 15, from Puerto Plata, all naming St. Thomas as the destination. When the captain testified August '2, in answer to the standing interrogatories, he said nothing about any Spanish bills of health. The deposition was reread to the captain, August 3, and on the next day, August 4j he wrote to the prize commissioners desiring to correct it, saying: “I fear I have badly interpreted several questions. I. was asked if I had destroyed any papers on board or passports. I replied, no. The papers — documents — on board for our voyage had been delivered up proper and legal to the prize master. This is absolutely the truth, not including in the documents two Spanish bills of health, one from Port au Prince and one from Cape Haytien, which we found in opening our papers, although they had not been demanded. Not having any value for us, I said to the steward to destroy them on our arrival at Charleston, as we often do with papers that are useless to us. The regular expedition only counts from the last port, which was Puerto Plata, and I refused to take it from our agent for Porto Rico. I swear that at my examination I did not think of this, and it is only on my return from signing that the steward recalled it to me. I never sought to disguise the truth, since I wish to advise you of it as soon as possible.”

On the 5th of August the purser answered the interroga

On the 5th the captain was permitted to testify, in explanation, saying, among other things: “ The reason that we did not give up the two bills of health is because they did not form a part of the clearance of our ship for our itinerary, and they were left in the pigeon holes where they were. It was at the time of our arrival at the quarantine at Charleston that the purser spoke to me of them, and I told him that they were good .for nothing and to tear them up. The captain wishes to add that he did not remember the instance the •other day about the destruction of papers, that he has just told us about, and that he never had any intention to disguise anything'or to deceive.”

In The Pizarro, 2 Wheat. 227 , 241, the rule is thus stated by Mr. Justice Story: “Concealment, or even spoliation of papers is not of itself a sufficient ground for condemnation in a prize court. It is, undoubtedly, a very awakening circumstance, calculated to excite the vigilance, and to justify the suspicions of the court. But it is a circumstance open to explanation, for it may have arisen from accident, necessity or superior force; and if the party in the first instance fairly and frankly explains it to the satisfaction of the court, it deprives him of no right to which he is otherwise entitled. If, on the other hand, the spoliation be unexplained, or the explanation appear weak and futile; if the cause labor under heavy suspicions, or there be a vehement presumption of bad 'faith, or gross prevarication, it is made the ground of a denial of further proof, and condemnation ensues from defects in the evidence which the party is not permitted to supply.”

It should be remembered that the first deposition of the captain was given in answer to standing interrogatories, and not under an oral examination; that the statute (Rev. Stat. § 4622) forbade the witness “ to see the interrogatories, documents or papers, or to consult counsel, or with any persons interested, without special authority from the court; ” that he was born and had always lived in Prance, and was apparently not conversant with our language; indeed, he protested, as “neither understanding nor speaking English,” “against all interpretation or translation contrary to my thought;” that the deposition having been reread to him the day after it was taken, he detected its want of fulness, and immediately wrote the prize commissioners on the subject with a view to cor-’

Transactions of this sort constitute in themselves no ground for condemnation, but are evidence, more or less convincing, of the existence of such ground; yet, taking the evidence in this case together, we are not prepared to hold that the explanation as to how these bills came to be received on board, neglected when the papers were surrendered, and finally torn up, was not sufficient to obviate any decisive inference of objectionable intention.

The Government further insisted that the Olinde Rodrigues refused to obey the signal from the New Orleans to heave to and stop instantly, and turned only after she had fired, and that this conclusively established an intention to violate the blockade. The theory of the Government is that the French ship purposely held on so as to get under the protection of the batteries of San Juan.

The log of the Olinde Rodrigues states: “ 6.30, noticed the heights of San Juan. At 7.20, took the bearings of the fortress at 45 degrees, eight miles and one half‘crosswise. Noticed, at 7.50, a man-of-war. At 8.10, she signalled ‘ J.W.,’ [“ heave to and stop instantly.”] I went towards it and made arrangements in order to receive the whale boat which is sent to us.”

In a communication to the Ambassador of France at Washington, written July 17, and purporting to give a full account of the matter, the captain said that he “ was some time before seeing her signal, on account of the distance and of the sun. Suspecting what she wanted, I hoisted the ‘perceived’ and stopped.”

He'testified that he turned his vessel to the war ship befoíe. the gun was fired, which was at 8.12, but on this point the evidence is strongly to the contrary. We are inclined to think that some allowance should be made for imperfect recollection in the rapid passage of events. The Olinde Rodrigues was comparatively a slow sailer, (ten to twelve knots,) and if the captain stopped on seeing the signal, and turned towards the war ship with reasonable promptness, a settled purpose to

The stress of the contention of the Government is, however, that the Olinde Rodrigues was on a course directly into the' port of San Juan at the time her progress was arrested. It is extremely difficult to be precise in such a matter, as her course to reach St. Thomas necessarily passed in face of San Juan. The captain attached to his explanatory affidavit a sketch, “ showing the usual route and the actual route which he was taking at the time of the capture, with the position of the capturing ship and his own ship,” as follows, see p. 531.

But it appears from the entries of the' second officer on the log of the Olinde Rodrigues that the ship was from one to five o’clock in the morning of July 17 on the course, (as corrected,) S. 69 E., and that from six to eight o’clock the course was S. 73 E.

The captain testified that at the time of capture: “.I had just passed the port of San Juan, about 7 or 8 miles eastward of the port, and about 9 miles from shore, about 9 miles from Morro. They judged the distance in passing as they do from all points.”

The second officer said that “ they were 9 miles from San Juan after having passed the port of San Juan and gone é miles east of it.”

This testimony strikingly confirms Oaptain Folger’s candid expression of opinion that though the master of the Olinde Rodrigues may have been going in and out of that port for years, he did not measure the distances, but “ would run so far down the coast and order them to steer to a certain point to head in.”

The commander of the New Orleans admitted “ that south 69 is the proper course beforehand for the Culebra Passage,” (the passage through which to reach St. Thomas,) but contested that the French vessel was making that course.

Lieutenant Rooney, the navigator of the New Orleans, laid down the positions upon a chart as follows, see p. 532.

And it is urged that the conclusion is inevitable that the French ship intended to run into the port and to draw the pursuing cruiser within the range of the Spanish guns. If her being in the neighborhood were not satisfactorily explained ; if she persistently ignored the signal of the cruiser; and if her course was a course into the port of San Juan and not a proper course to reach St. Thomas, then the conclusión may be admitted; but it is not denied that she was in the neighborhood in the discharge of her duty, and we have already seen that she may be consistently regarded as not having defied the signal.

On the part of the captors, the witnesses concurred that the Olinde Rodrigues’ course was laid for the port of San Juan, while on her behalf this was denied, except so far as her course for St. Thomas took her near the blockaded port. In addition to the witnesses from the New Orleans the telegraph operator on the Morro testified that the Olinde Rodrigues was coming directly toward the Morro, but changed her course when the shot was fired.

A principal reason given by the witnesses for concluding that the Olinde Rodrigues was making for San Juan was that her masts, as seen from the deck of the New Orleans, were open, thus indicating that she was sailing south or toward the port "of San Juan. It was admitted that this would not necessarily be so unless the New Orleans was on the same line east and west- with the other vessel, or, in other words,- if the

Some of the evidence, in short, had a tendency to show that the Olinde Rodrigues, when sailing on a proper course for St. Thomas, would be drawing to the south, and that the New Orleans was to the north of her, in which case, obviously, the nearer the vessels approached the more open would the masts of the Olinde Rodrigues appear. But the clear preponderance was that the captured ship was to the west of a north and south line drawn through Morro, and running nearly south just befor'e or when the New Orleans fired.

It is impossible to deny that the testimony of Captain Folger, the commander of the New Orleans, and of his officers, was extremely strong and persuasive to establish that the

The evidence of evil intent must be clear and convincing before a merchant ship belonging to citizens of a friendly nation will be condemned. And on a careful review of the entire evidence, we think we are not compelled to proceed to that extremity.

But, on the other hand, we are bound to say that, taking all the circumstances together and giving due weight to the evidence on behalf of the captors, probable cause for making the capture undoubtedly existed; and the case disclosed does not commend this vessel to the favorable consideration of the court.

Probable cause exists where there are circumstances sufficient to warrant suspicion though it may turn out that the facts are not sufficient to warrant condemnation. And whether they are or not cannot be determined unless the customary proceedings of prize are instituted and enforced. The Adeline, 4 Cranch, 244 , 285; The Thompson, 3 Wall. 155 . Even if not found sufficient to condemn, restitution will not necessarily be made absolutely, but may be decreed conditionally as each case requires, and an order of restitution does not prove lack of probable cause. The Adeline, supra; Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch, 2 , 28, 29.

In the statement of Sir William Scott and Sir John Nicholl,

In The Appollon, 9 Wheat. 362 , 372, Mr. Justice Story said : “No principle is better settled in the law of prize than the rule that probable cause will not merely excuse, but even, in some cases, justify a capture. If there be probable cause, the captors are entitled, as of right, to an exemption from damages ; and if the case be of strong and vehement suspicion, or requires further proof to entitle the claimant to restitution, the law of prize proceeds yet farther, and gives the captors their costs and expenses in proceeding to adjudication.”

Section 1639 of the Revised Statutes contemplates that, under circumstances, all costs and expenses shall remain charged on the captured vessel though she be restored, and this court has repeatedly held that damages and costs will be denied where there was probable cause for seizure, and that sometimes costs will be awarded to the captors. The Venus, 5 Wheat. 127 ; The Thompson, 3 Wall. 155 ; The Springbok, 5 Wall. 1 ; The Dashing Wave, 5 Wall. 170 ; The Sir William Peel, 5 Wall. 517 ; The Peterhoff, 5 Wall. 28 , 61, 62.

In The Dashing Wave, Chief Justice Chase said: “ We think it was the plain duty of a. neutral claiming to be engaged in trade with Matamoras, under circumstances which

In The Springbok, the ship was restored but costs and damages were not allowed because of the misconduct of the master.

In The Peterhoff, payment of costs and expenses by the ship • was decreed as a condition of restitution. The Peterhoff was captured by the United States vessel of war Yanderbilt on suspicion of intent to run the blockade and of having contraband on board. Her captain refused to take his papers to the Yanderbilt, and, in addition, papers were destroyed, and a package was thrown overboard. The Peterhoff was searched, and it is stated in the opinion: “ The search led to the belief on the part of the officers of the Yanderbilt that there was contraband on board, destined to the enemy. This belief, it is now apparent, was warranted. It was therefore the duty of the captors to bring the Peterhoff in for adjudication, and clearly they are not liable for the costs and expenses of doing so.” The court then commented on the destruction of papers, and the throwing overboard of the package, in regard to which it was unable to credit the representations of the captain, but in view of the other facts in the case, did not extend the effect of the captain’s conduct and the incriminating circumstances to condemnation.

The case before us falls plainly within these rulings. This vessel had gone into San Juan on July 4, although the captain had heard of the blockade at St. Thomas, but he says he had

When the New Orleans succeeded the Yosemite her commander was informed of the facts by his predecessor, and knew that whatever the right of the Olinde Rodrigues to be in those waters, she could not lawfully place herself so near the interdicted port as to be able to break the blockade with impunity. But when he sighted her the ship was on a course to all appearance directly into that port, and steadily pursuing it. And when he signalled, the Olinde Rodrigues apparently did not obey, but seemingly persisted on her course, and that course would in a few moments have placed her within the range of the guns of Morro and of the shore batteries. In fact, when the shot was fired she was within the range of the Morro’s guns. The evidence is overwhelming that she did not change her course until after the' shot was fired, even though she may have stopped as soon, as she saw the signal. The turning point into the Culebra or Virgin Passage was perhaps forty miles to the eastward, and while she could have passed the port of San Juan on the course she was on, it would have been within a very short distance. The disregard of her duty to shun the port and not approach it was so flagrant that the intention to break the blockade was to be presumed, though we do not hold that that was a presumption de jure.

The ship’s log was not produced until three hours after she was boarded, and it now appears that the papers furnished the boarding officer, “said to be all the ship’s papers,” did not include two Spanish bills of health in which San Juan was entered as the vessel’s destination. These were destroyed after the ship reached Charleston, and were, therefore, in the ship’s

The entire record considered, we are of opinion that restitution of the Olinde Rodrigues should be awarded, without damages, and that payment of the costs and expenses incident to her custody and preservation, and of all costs in the cause except the fees of counsel, should be imposed upon the ship.

The decree of the District Court will be so modified, and

As modified affirmed.

Mr. Justice McKenna dissented on the ground that the evidence justified condemnation.