Eduooteddruggists and others knew how to oil :and wax papeJ:Hlong before the date of 'this One of the and. pro. c.ciuntry and in E:urope was that of upon a heated stove a copper plate of proper size, upon which a piece of paper was laid, and rubbed over with the desired waxing substance. Any surplus wax remaining, was removed with 8 piece of cloth. Experiencesoon demonstrated ,that the melted wax would pass through and' permeate a number of sheets. As early as 1864, Wichelman waxed fine, tissue paper with butter, lard, sW'eet oil, .peanut oil, oil, arid'cottonseed oil, spd in 1871 he successfully used paraffine for the same purpose. In 1874 he placed in a tin PaIl; 8 stack of dry paper, on top of whi<Jh he laid apiece of paraffine wax,and then placed the pan and its con,tents ina heated .oven, where it remained long enough for the wax to melt and soak through the paper. After the paper had sufficiently a15scirbed the itwas removed from the pan, and placed upon a plate .of iron,provided at either end with legs, long enough to make an air spacebetwoon 'the plate and a furnace or stove upon which it rested, and the paper was then smoothed and removed sheet by sheet;, In January, 1886, Wichelman commenced theprocesswhjch, it is insisted, infringes, the fifth claim. ,He laid 100 sheets of paper in a tiIl,piih; and then dipped a piece oifelt cloth in a tank cpntaining paraffine melted by the bottom. He placed the saturated cloth on top of the paper, and repeated this operation until the !ltack wa,s of the desired The P8:n coomiriing.the paper Wll,S theIl placeq. in ,8, boX, heated by steam-pipes, wher,e it remained fur, ·half an hour. The paper w;as then taken out, the,felt removed,and the paper put into another pati,and placed in 8 preSj; siit1ilar to 8 py whic4 t4e surplus then placed upon a table ,heated wax was forced out. The. paper by coils of steam-pipe adjusted under it, where the sheets weresepaemployed ,for that ,piirpose,each. sheet being' smoQthed, with a of felt or While this was an improvement upon the old mode, it was nevertheless a hand process, and not a process by machinery, or the means described in the Hammerschlag patent. The bill is dismissed for want of equity.
CoNSERVA. 1 '
POR FORFEITUlUll. :
(Dilb-ict Court, E. 1). Nf/ID York. March 5,1889.),
The crime necessary to be showuin order to.secure a,forfeiture of a vessel under section 5288, Rev. St. U. S., consists of an 'act done within the limits of the United States, with the intentthatth, vessel in'connection with. which the act is done shall be eJ;llployedin. the service' of some foreigIl. .;prince. or state, or colony, district, or people, as a cruiser or 'committer' of '!iostilities
'against the subJects,' citizens, or property of some foreign prince or state, or c()lony, district. or people, with whom the United States are at peace The intent described In tne statute is 'a necessary Ingredient of the offense created by the'statute, in the absence of which no crime is .committed or forfeiture Incurred. ' '
In a proceeding Instituted under section 5283, Rev. St. U. S., the fact must be bhown that the 'government against which it is alleged that the vessel is intended to commit hostilities has been recognized by the United States.
. . '
Where on the evidence the most that could be said was that a vessel was :tI.tted'outwith Intent to send her to the port of San Domingo, where !lhemight, in certain contingencies, be employed to sally forth in the service ()fa faction in the islandef' Hayti under one Hyppolite, to cruise or commit hostilities against an organization. controlled by one Legitime, neither of which factions had been recogolzedas a belligerent power by the government oUhe United States, held, that a proceeding could not be maintained to forfeit the vellsel under se.ctlon 5283. Rev. St,
" , '' . '
Where the evidencesh()w,ed that a yessel was fitted out for the purpose of proceeding from New York to Samaoa, in a condition ihcapable of being used toco!lllnit hostilitie,s ag,aiost anyone. to be there delivered to the government of the, Dominican republic. keld, that for the use to which she might thereafter be put by the government of the Dominican republic that government was responsible. and not 'the United States; and that a well-founded suspicion,tblj.t the governmeI)t of the DOJIlJnican republic would use the vessel to 'violatidts neutral' obligations was not sufficient to justify a finding in this' elise that the fitting out done in' New York was done with that intent to use her to commit hostilities, which, under the statnte. is the gist of the offense. Whetber, under section 5288, Rev. St., the act to ,be proved in order to condemn the ship mtist be the act of tltting out and arming the vessel. or of aiqlng such aoact, or attempttng such an :act, qua!re,
' ; .' .....
A proceed'ng under section 5288, Rov. St., is a simplE) suit in admiralty, where the dMreewill be simply that the libel be dismissed,or the vessel condemned; llind no decree of restitution is necessary.
SAME-FOREIGN CLAIMANT-RIGHT' TO INTERFERE.
A consul of a foreign government, ,who is the only representative preseqt. of his government, has the right to intervene and claim a vessel belonging to such government. against which a libel has been filed to securll'herforfeiture. " '
In Admiralty! Action against the steam-ship Conserva brought under section 5283. Rev. St. U. S., to secure a forleiture of the vessel for an alleged violation of the neutrality laws. Mark D. Wilber) U. S. Dist. Atty., and John L. Devenney, Asst. Dist. Atty. Macfarland, Boardman &; Platt and David Wilcox, for the Conserva.
BENEDICT, J. This is a proceeding in admiralty, instituted by the district, attorney against ll. vessel known as the "Conserva," to the forfeitllreof that vessel for a violation' of the neutrality laws of ,the United States. The is taken under section 5283 of 'the Revised Statutes" whioh provides as follows: "Every person who. within the limits of the United States, fits out anll
arms, or attempts to fit out and arm, or procures to be fitted out and armed.
or knoJl'ingly is concerned in the furnishing. fitting out. or arming. of any vessel, withilltent that such vessel shall be employed in the service of any for. eign 9r state. or of any colony. district, or people. to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, distriet, or people, with whom the United States are at peace, '" '" '" shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor. '" '" · And every such vessel, her tackle, apparel, and furniture. together with all materials, arms, amllJ unitions, and stores which may have been procured for the building and equipment thereof, shall be forfeited."
The libel, in the secondartide, avers that certain persons to the district -attorney unknown, within the limits of the United States and of the Eastern district of New York, and within the jurisdiction of this court, fitted out and armed this vessel, with the intent that she should be employed in the service of a certain people and district of the island of Hayti, (to-wit, certain rebels, who are in a state of insurrection against the' organized and recognized government of the republic of Hayti,) to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, and property of the republic of Hayti, with which the United States of America then was, and now is, at peace. The third article contains an averment that certain persons to the attorney of the United States unknown, within the limits of the United States and the Eastern district of New York, were knowingly concerned in the furnishing and fitting out of said vessel, with the intent that said vessel should be employed as stated in the first article. The fourth article avers that within the limits the United States, at the Eastern district of New York, certain persons to the attorney of the United States unknown, fitted out, furnished, or armed the said vessel; which persons had knowledge that said vessel should be employed in the service of a foreign people, (to-wit, a portion of the· pee>ple of the island of Hayti,) to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens; or property of the republic of Hayti, with which the United States of America then was, and now is, at peace. The fifth article charges that certain persons to the said attorney of the United States unknown, within the limits of the United States and of the Eastern district of New York, and within the jurisdiction of this' court, attempted to fit out and arm the said vessel, with intent that such vessel should be employed in the service of a foreign people. (to-wit, a portion of the people of the of Hayti,) to cruise or commit hostilities the subjects, citizens, or property of the republic of Hayti, with whom the United StateS of America then was, and now is, at peace. Upon the filing of the libel; process in rem was issued, and the vessel taken into custody ,by the marshal. Thereupon a claim was interposed by Leoncio Julia, consul of the Dominican republic, intervening as such consul for the interest of the government of the Dominican republic, in which claim it is averred, that: Leoncio Julia was in possession of the said vessel at the time of the attachment thereof, and the government of the Dominican republic is the true and bonafide owner of said steam-ship, and no other pt'fson is the owner thereof. No exceptions were taken to any of the articles of the libel', but on the same day an answer to the libel was filed, and application made on the part of the claimants for an immediate trial. After v.38F.no.5-28
hearing the .district attorney. in ·opposition, the 22d inst·.was fixed for the triaL On that day the hearing was commenced, .and at the close of to M;onday, 25th. On the opening of the court on. the '25th the district attorney-made application for)eave to file an exception to the claim, and also an exception to the answer. Objection beingmade,Jiberty was given to file the exception to the claim, with a direction that the hearing upon such exception be had at the same time with the hearing upon the merits. Permission to file exceptions to the answer was denied upon the ground that the trial was already in progress, and that at the time when the day for ·trial was set the intention to excep!tto ·the answer was abandoned. The hearing thereupon proceeded, and continued until the 28th inst., on which day the case was submitted to the court for its decision. In disposing of the case it will be convenient at first to consider the point taken by the district attorney, that, the claim having been exceptedto, the libel must be sustained because of insufficient proof of such an interest in the ship as entitled the consul of the Dominican republic to.intervene in behalf of the Dominican government. Here there seems to be· some misapprehension. This is not a .case of property seized by the .collector, nor of the property captured as prize, or taken by any kindiofexecutive.seizure, but a simple case in admiralty, where the' decree will be either a. decree dismissing the libel,orcondemning the vessel·.. In such cases I do Dot understand that any decree of restitution is necessary. ' If the decree be adverse to the libelant, the decree is simply that the libel be dismissed, and theveBsel discharged from the custody of the marshal. In such a case the intervention of acot1sul in behalf of his government, intervening for its interest in the vessel, seems to meentire1y proper. The ntoreso in this case because it appears that the government of the Dominican republic has no representative here except the consulw,ho has intervened. In numerous instances the intervention of a consul in the interest of citizens of his own country has .been permitted. No reason is: seen: for refusing such permission when the is in behalf of his .own government.Londcm Packet, 1 Mason, [4; The Adolph, 1 Curt. 87; The Bello Corrunes, 6 Wheat. 166. Such action on the parto( the consul has nothing to do with negotia·tions with foreign states, noris it an attempt to vindicate any prerogatiye of government. He simply represents his .governmentashaving an interest in the "essel proceeded against. Such interest is shown in this instance by a. bill of sale, whereby the legal title of the vessel proceeded .against has been pal;sedto the government of the Dominican republic. This is proof, in my opinion, sufficient to permit the interventiollof the consul for the, pnrpose of. contesting the question of forfeiture that has been raised by the libel. In the, case of TheMeteor, Judge BETTS de,elined to ,ntertain a similar obJection to the claim, upon the ground that .the issue was ,immaterial in cases of this description, and the point was not pressed on the appeal. . Passing now to the merits, the following facts may be stated as established by the evidence: The steamer in question was bought by the
mercal,1tUeJb.·m of Kunhardt & Co. to fin an order placed with them by one Nemur Auguste for a steamer adapted to be cOllverted into a gunboat, to be delivered in Samana, a port of the Dominican republic, to the goverJ1Ulent of the Dominican republic, a nation at peace with the United States, and, so far as appears, not involved in any war.. Thereupon Kunhardt & 00. ca.uSed the steamer that time named the Madrid-to be fitted out at the port of New YOrk' by piercing her with port-holes for guns, plating her sides with iron, and otherwise rendering the vessel suitable to be converted into a gun-boat. Her capacity to commit hostilities was dependent upon her being supplied with guns. Without guns she was incapable of being used for any hostile cruise. Bills of sale w.ere executed and delivered from the former. owner to one O. P. Kunhardt, an agent of Kunhardt &00., and from him to Kunhardt & 00., and.thereaftel'a bill of sale from Kunhardt &00. to the government of the Dominican republic was executed and delivered to the consul of the DOtI\inical,1 republic. The nationality. of the vessel was then changed from American to that of the Dominican republic, and her name altered from" Madrid" to "Conserva;" and, having been openly cleared by the collector at the custom-house for the port of Samana, she set sail from the port. of New York on the 16th day of February. 1889, on the voyage aforesaid, in charge of a master, proviued with an ordinary crew. suitable oIilly.for the navigation of the ship during such a voyage, and having on :board an agent of Kunhardt & 00., charged with the duty of receiving from the Domini(lan republic at Samana the balance of the money dUe Kunhardt & Co., on the delivery of the vessel to that government inSamana. As before stated, she had no armament whatever, nor any munitions of war, and was incapable of being used to commit hostilities of IIony kind until supplied with guns. After. the vessel had proceeded a short distance on the voyage aforesaid, she sprung a leak, and thereupon she returned to the port whence she had, sailed,where she was then attached by the marshal by virtue of the process issued in this ca.use. These facts are considered established by the proofs. The case contains other testimony as to other facts, not now alludedto,because, inmy opinion, the facts already stated compel a dil:llnissal of the libel, and that£or the following reasons: 'rhis is a statutory proceeding taken under the provisions of the stllotute above quoted. By that statute oertain acts in connection with a vessel, when done within the United States, and with a certain intent,are ml:Lde crimes. And it is. provided "that every such vessel, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all materials, arms, ammunitions, and stores which may have been procured for the building and equipment thereof, shall be forfeited." The languageofthi.s section, which is reproduced from the act of 1818, has on more than one occasion given rise to the question whether the words "such vessel," as used in the atatute, Ulust nut be understood to mean a vessel fitted out and armed. .In the. case of'fM Meteor such· a construction. of the statute was rejected by Judge The decree of Judge BI<;TTS was reversed .by Mr. Justice NELSON on other grounds, but iUs to be observed that the learned justice is careful to 8tate that upon this question he. expresses no opinion. In
"With respect to those who have been denominated at the bar the chief actors, the law would seem to make it necessary that they should be charged with fitting out · and' arming. These words may require that both should concur, and the vessel be put in a condition to commit hostilities, in order to bring her within the law."
6 .Pet. 465, it was said by the supreme court of the
This intimation seems calculated to raise doubt upon this question, if not to raise inquiry as to the oorrectness of the ruling which gave occasion for the intimation, and renders it possible still to contenll that under this statute-a statute which, it must be remembered, marks oat for the courts the limit of the neutral obligations of the United Statesthe act to be proved in order toeondemn the ship must be the act of fitting out and arming the vessel, or ofaiding in suchan act, or attempting such an act, See argument of Mr. Evarts, in the Meteor CaBe, Volume 2, p. 44. Thus much may be said upon this ,question in the hope that by ohance attention in som.e proper quarter may be again called to the language of this statute, and its limited scope: dMy decision will be placed on other grounds now to be stated. As has been often said, the intent described in this statuteisanecessary ingredient of the offenses created, in the absence of which no crime is committed, n0l: any forfeiture incurred. The crime necessary to be shown in order to forfeit the ship consists of an act done within the limits of the United States, when done with thatintent,'namely, the intent that the vessel in connection with which the act is done shall be employed in the service of some foreign prince 01' state, or colony,' district, or people, as a cruiser or committer of hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of some foreign prince or state, or colony, district, or people. with whom the United! States are at peace. The libel in this case charges certain acts to have been done in connection with the vessel, with the intent that the vessel be employed in the service of certain rebels in a state of insurrection against the organized and recognized government of the republic of Hayti, to ,cruise and commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of the republic of Hayti, with whom the Vnited States' are at peace. A yiolation of the neutrality which the United States is bound to maintain between the rebels mentioned and the government of the republic of Hayti is the gravamen of the charge. But the evidence fails to show a state of facts from which the courl can cOllclude that the United States was ever under any obligations . of neutrality to the rebels mentioned,· or is now under any obligations of neutrality to the government of the republic of Hayti; that government, , as it appears, having heen overthrown, and neither of the factions striving to establish a government there having been recognized as lawful belligerents by our government. Upon the evidence the most that can be said .is that the vessel was fitted out with intent 'to send her to Samana, where l!!he might, in certain contingencies, be employed to sally forth in the service of Hyppblite, referred to in the libel as a rebel against the organized a1;ld recognized government of the repUblic of Hayti, to cruise
and commit hostilities against:an organization, in the island of Hayti cont.rolled by Gen. Legitime; which ()rganization, it is contended by the district attorney, constitutes the government of the republic of Hayti. But the evidence fails to show· that either of the factions contending with each other for the government in Hayti have been recognized by the government of the United States as a belligerent power capable of making peace or of carrying on lawful war. It is true that various documents issued from the department of state have been put in evidence, containing certain expressions which the court if! invited to examine in order to find therein an implied recognition of the faction of Legitime as representing the government of Hayti. I do not think that in a case like .this the court is required to deal with uncertain implications contained in such documents as have been here presented. The fact-of public recognition of any prince,state, colony, district, or people as a belligerent,is One to be made known to all men by public proclamation from the executive, .or some public act by necessary implication equivalent to BUch a proelamation. It was easy for the government in this case to fur· nish a certificate as to its position in regard. to the contending forces in Hayti. If, in the understanding of the government, either of these factious had been recognized by. the government as a lawful belligerent, no reason is suggested why such fact would not have been stated bycertif. icate. Such a certificate was produced in the Case oj the Meteor. Under the circumstances, the absence of such a certificate proves the absence of the fact. Furthermore, the message of the president of the United States, put in evidence by the claimant, proclaims as follows: ".1 announce with sincere that Hayti has again become the theater of insurrection, disorder, and bloodshed. The titular government of Presidl'nt Salomon hal'l beeq forcibly overthrown, and he driven out of the country to France, where he has since died. 'fhe tenure Of power has been so unstable amid the war of factions that has .ens'Jed since the expulsion of President Sal· omon that no government constituted by the will of the Haytian people has been recognized as administering responsibly the affairs of that counlry." This message, certairily, in the absence of any proclamation or certifi. cate to the contrary, is conclusive to show the absence of such recogni. tion. The law applicable here has been declared in numerous authorities, which may be found cited in the case of The Ambrose Light,251!'ed. Rep. 408; to which I add an extract from the letter of Mr. Attorney General Hoar to the secretary of state, dated September 16, 1869, in which he says, (13 bps. Atty. Gen. 178:) "If ever the time shall come when it shall seem fitting to the political department of'the government of the United States to recognize Cuba as an independent government, entitled til admission into the family of nations. or, without recognizing its indbpendence, to find that an organized government capable of carrying on war, and to he held responsible to other natiuns for the manner in which it carries it on, exists in that island. it will he the duty of that department to declare and act upon those facts. But, before such a state of things is found to exist, it is not, in my judgment. competent fOf a l:ourt to undertake to settle those questions.. 'fhe judicial tribunals must follow and conform to the political action of the govern!Dent in regard to the existence .offoreignslllites, and our relations 'to them; and it WOUld, in my opinioD.be
the Moar and dignity of the United States, to submit to a court,andaijow to be declared and acted upon. in: such: indirect manner. rights and d.util;ls towards,a fpreign,nati9n which the government is not prepared distinctly and upon its own responsibility to avow and maintain."
' . ,
Such being the law, it seemsplain.that this prosecution must fall for want of proofthat either Hyppolite or Legitime have been recognized by our government 'as belligerent powers. In the absence of proof of that fact, the fitting out of a vessel with intent to enter the service of one to commit hostilities against the other is not brought within the scope of , ' the There is another defect in the evidence, and that is II failure to prove an intent to fit -out this vessel for hostilities against Legitime or anyone else. The evidence establishes the fact that this vessel was fitted out with' intent ta send her to the port of· Samana in charge of an ordinary crew, and in a condition which rendered her incapable of being used to commit hostilities against anyone; and that is all. There is no evidence of an intent to use the port ofNew York as a sallY"port-a naval base-for a hostile expedition against any one. The vessel was dispatched from New York to the port of Samana. All that was done limits of the United States in connection with this vessel within was done With the sole intent of dispatching her upon that peaceful voyage. It is no case of simulated destination., Samana, as all agree; was the real and only destination' of the vessel in the contemplation of those 6ttingherout; when she was thus fitted out, and when she sailed. Those who fitted her out come forward· in court, and deolare upon the witness stand that they fitted her out with, that and no other intent. The case contains no evidence sufficient 'to warrant a rejection of their testimony. Neither is it a case of touching at a port of call in the course,o( a continuous voyage to some other lIer master was engaged by Kunhardt & 00. to take her toSamana, and, there leave her. Her crew shipped for a voyage: to Samana, and no further, and their passage, homefr()m proyided for & Co. Whatever was done within the limits Of the United States in fitting out or dispatching the vessel must, upon tne,evidence, be found to have been done with this intent and no other, namely, that the, yessel should go direct from New Yorkto Samana; that there her voyage was to end, the crew arid the vessel then passed froll}. the hands of those to be 'who fitted her out into the hands of the government of the Dominican so delivered she 'would be capable'indeed of being emrepublic. ployed there,afler by tQe government of the republic as it might deem fit, ,but there was no intent whatever on the part of those who fitted her out in New York that she was to be employed thereafter in any capacity whatever. That such was in truth and in fact ,the voyage for which :she 'was fitted out, .and on which $he sailed, is placed' beyond dispute by the testimony in the case ofTM Carondelet. 37 Fed. ReP. 799, (a lately tried before udge BROWN in: the Southern district of New York,) which t;estimony 1wJ been read in this case by consent. from whjchit appears that guns apparently intended to be used to arm
this vessel, and belonging to the government of the Dominican republic, were to be transported in the steam-ship Carondelet toSamana. So it ;is found proved ill that case, as in this, that .the vessel was fitted out in ' New York with intent to send her to Samana direct, for the sole and onlypm:pose of there handing her over, in the condition in which she sailed, to;the government of the Dominican republic. A suggestion was made on the argument that Kunhardt & Co. must have understood that after the delivery of the vesselin Samana she was .'00 bethere converted into a gun-boat, and in case she should sail from that port it would be in the service of Hyppolite, to cruise against the forces of Legitime. And it seems that some sailors shipped in New York believed that such would eventually be the employment of the. vessel. The chief engineer, who shipped in New York for a voyage from New ¥orkto !Samana, evidently was solicitous that the men shipped in his department ishouldbe willing to remain on board the vessel in sonie future employment of her' after the termination of. the voyage to Samana. .Butna engagement of. any one was made for employment in the service of Hyppolite; and, making the most of the testimony,· it is· barely sufficient to indicate that those fitting out the vessel in New York had ground to suspect that the government of the Dominican republic would be likely to permit the vessel; when converted into a gun-boat at Samana, to issue thence in the service of Hyppolite. Such a suspicion, if entertained by Kunhardt & Co. while fitting out the vessel, by no means justifies the finding as a fact that part of their project was to furnish a gun-boat for Hyppolite, or to hold any of their acts to have been done with intent that the vessel should be ,used. to commit hostilities against Legitime. It is obvious that a subsequent departure of this vessel from Samana upon a hostile expedition against the forces of Legitime was necessarily contingent upon arrangements to be made by the government of the Dominican republic, and could form no part of the present intent with which . the vessel was fitted· out in New York. .The case is within the decision .ofthesupreme court of the United .States in U. S. v. Quincy, 6. Pet. 445. The case of a vessel·fitted outin New York to issue thence for the purpose of heing armed at then proceeding upon a hostile cruise, iElnot before the court. The case in hand is simplytbe adventure of fitting out within the limits pf the United· States, and sending thence to the port of Samana, for the sole purpose of a delivery there to the government of the Dominican republic, a vessel capable of being convlilrted tpere into .a gun-boat. Suchan adventul'eis, in my opinion, mercial adventure not prohibited by the statutes of the United States. It of cOl1rse, true that the fitters out oHhis vessel acted with knowledge that she was capable of being converted into a. gun-boat in Samana. No doubt they understood that she would be so converted upon herarrival there. But there is no proof that they knew, nor is it seen how to what ser,vice she would be put by the Dominican after her, cqnversiou into a guu-boat at Samana. The case is barren of evidence as to the intentions of 'the government ofthe Domin, iean 'republic regarding the vessel, beyond" the fact of au inteJ;l;tlQu to
make a gun-boat of her. It is possible that, when converted into .. 1;l1nboat at Samana, this vessel may be dispatched thence upon some hostile cruise. But for acts done in the port of SamanaincollDectiol'tdth this vessel the government of that country, not the government of the 1Jnited States; is responsible. I am not aware that the governmu:it of the United States has undertaken to guaranty the discharge by thu Dominican republic of its obligationR of neutrality as regards the contending factions of Hayti, and feel confident that the statute under consideration cOl1tains no provisions that can be resorted to for the proteetion of any prince, ,state, colony, district, or people against any such appre.hended violation of its neutral obligations by the government of the Dominican republic. It seems certain that a suspicion entertained by . those who fitted out this vessel in New York that the government of the Dominican republic upon receipt of the vessel in Samana would conclude to violate its neutral obligations is not sufficient to jUlstify a finding that .the acts done by such persons in New York in fitting out the vessel were done with that intent, which, under the stMute, is the gist of the offense. ' For these reasons the libel must be dismissed!
UNITED STATES ,t1. THE SIDONIAN·
. (Circuit Court, B. D. Luuuiana. March 2, 1889.)
MAmTIMlIl LmNs-PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF "PASSENGER ACT."
The" passenger act" of 1882, (22 U. S. St. 186,) tables and seatl to be provided for the use of passenA"ers at regular meals. and for violation declares that the'master shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and sha:lI be fined notptore tpan $500, and be imprisoned not more than six months. By section 13the amount of the several fines and penalties imposed by the act on the master are liens upon the vessel, which may be libeled therefor. Held, that until a fine has been imposed on the master in a criminal prosecution for failure to provide tables and seats, a libel for such fine cannot be maintained. ·
Libel filed by the United States against the Sidonian, for by the..master of the act of 1882 known liS the "Passenger Act," (22 U. S. St. 186,) in not providing tables and seats for the use of emipassengers, at their meals. It is sought to enforce as a lien against
IAn appeal was,tl\ken by the United States frQm the above deoision, which appeal was afterwards ordered discontinued by the attorney general of the United States, on the·:flrst ground taken by the above deoision, i. e., that as the United States had reoognized neither of the Haytian faotiolll! as belligerents, this action oould not be maintainedj I!Jld the Conserva was therOupoD released from oustody, and sailed on Maroh l?l11SlI, for Saroana. [l!oBP. ' .
lIt Admiralty. ;,