Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    Ship Richmond v. United States, 13 U.S. 102 (1815)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Supreme Court affirmed the district and circuit courts' condemnation of the ship Richmond for violating the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809. The Richmond departed from Philadelphia bound for New York but instead sailed to Portsmouth, Great Britain without posting the required bond. While the Act was intended to apply to vessels with cargo, the Court interpreted it to also apply to vessels departing in ballast. Additionally, the initial seizure of the Richmond by a gunboat in Florida was considered a separate offense between governments, and did not invalidate the later civil seizure under the district court's process.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ship Richmond v. United States, 13 U.S. 102 (1815)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    18 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the district and circuit courts' condemnation of the ship Richmond for violating the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809. The Richmond departed from Philadelphia bound for New York but instead sailed to Portsmouth, Great Britain without posting the required bond. While the Act was intended to apply to vessels with cargo, the Court interpreted it to also apply to vessels departing in ballast. Additionally, the initial seizure of the Richmond by a gunboat in Florida was considered a separate offense between governments, and did not invalidate the later civil seizure under the district court's process.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1815-02-22 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 13 U.S. 102

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the district and circuit courts' condemnation of the ship Richmond for violating the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809. The Richmond departed from Philadelphia bound for New York but instead sailed to Portsmouth, Great Britain without posting the required bond. While the Act was intended to apply to vessels with cargo, the Court interpreted it to also apply to vessels departing in ballast. Additionally, the initial seizure of the Richmond by a gunboat in Florida was considered a separate offense between governments, and did not invalidate the later civil seizure under the district court's process.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    18 views3 pages

    Ship Richmond v. United States, 13 U.S. 102 (1815)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Supreme Court affirmed the district and circuit courts' condemnation of the ship Richmond for violating the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809. The Richmond departed from Philadelphia bound for New York but instead sailed to Portsmouth, Great Britain without posting the required bond. While the Act was intended to apply to vessels with cargo, the Court interpreted it to also apply to vessels departing in ballast. Additionally, the initial seizure of the Richmond by a gunboat in Florida was considered a separate offense between governments, and did not invalidate the later civil seizure under the district court's process.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    13 U.S.

    102
    9 Cranch 102
    3 L.Ed. 670

    THE SHIP RICHMOND,


    v.
    THE UNITED STATES.
    Feb. 15, 1815
    Absent. TODD, J.
    1APPEAL from the sentence of the Circuit Court for the
    2
    district
    of Georgia affirming the sentence of the district Court, which condemned the
    ship Richmond, for a violation of the non-intercourse act of 28th of June, 1809, vol.
    10, p. 13, by departing from Philadelphia, bound on a foreign voyage to a permitted
    port, without having given bond not to go to a prohibited port.
    3

    The case was argued by HARPER for the Appellant and JONES and
    PINKNEY for the United States.

    February 22d. Absent. TODD, J.


    4

    MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:

    The ship Richmond, an American registered vessel, sailed from Philadelphia in


    ballast, in December, 1809, with a clearance for New York, but proceeded to
    Portsmouth in Great Britain, where she arrived in 1810. She made two voyages
    to Amelia island in East Florida, during the second of which she was seized in
    St. Mary's river by gun-boat N., 62, January 14th, 1812, and libelled in the
    district Court of Georgia, for violating the act passed the 28th of June, 1809, for
    amending the non-intercourse law. The Richmond was condemned in both the
    district and circuit Courts, and from their sentence the Claimants have appealed
    to this Court.

    The Claimants contend,

    1. That the vessel was not liable to forfeiture.

    2. That the seizure was made within the territory of Spain, and that all
    proceedings founded thereon are void.

    When the Richmond sailed from Philadelphia, commercial intercourse between


    the ports of Great Britain, and those of the United States, was permitted. But
    the act of the 28th of June, 1809, vol. 10, p. 13, enacts, that 'no ship or vessel
    bound to a foreign port of place with which commercial intercourse has been or
    may be thus permitted, except, &c. shall be allowed to depart unless the owner
    or owners, consignee or factor of such ship or vessel shall, with the master,
    have given bond, with one or more sureties, to the United States, in a sum
    double the value of the vessel and cargo, that the vessel shall not proceed to
    any port or place with which commercial intercourse is not thus permitted, nor
    be directly nor indirectly enguged during the voyage in any trade with such port
    or place.' If a vessel shall depart without having given such bond, the vessel
    with her cargo are declared to be wholly forfeited.

    10

    It is contended that this act does not apply to vessels departing from the United
    States to a permitted port, in ballast.

    11

    The act is certainly not expressed with all the precision that could be wished.
    The case contemplated by the legislature most probably was that of a vessel
    sailing with a cargo; but there is reason to believe that a vessel departing in
    baliast also, was within the meaning and intent of the law.' The boud is
    provided to prevent a breach of the existing restrictive laws by a vessel clearing
    out or sailing for a permitted port, but actually proceeding to a prohibited port.
    This might be done by a vessel with or without a cargo; and the condition of the
    bond would be violated, in its letter as well as spirit, by the vessels sailing
    without the cargo to a prohibited port. The Court understands the law, then,
    directing a bond to be given in double the value of the vessel and cargo, to
    apply to the cargo if there be a cargo, but to the vessel only if there be no cargo.

    12

    The seizure of an American vessel within the territorial jurisdiction of a foreign


    power, is certainly an offence against that power, which must be adjusted
    between the two governments. This Court can take no cognizance of it; and the
    majority of the Court is of opinion that the law does not connect that trespass, if
    it be one, with the subsequent seizure by the civil authority, under the process
    of the District Court, so as to annul the proceedings of that Court against the
    vessel. One judge, who does not concur in this opinion, considers the testimony
    as sufficient to prove that the Richmond, when first seized by the gun-boat, was
    within the jurisdictional limits of the United States.

    13

    The sentence is affirmed with costs.

    You might also like