TIlE HAYTIAN REPUBUo. UNITED STAT,ES v.' TIlE HAYTlAN REPUBLIC. . (District Court, D. Oregon. August 8, 1893.)
L .ADM'tRALTY 'pLEADING-ExOEPTIONS
, Where, after the argument 'of exceptions to a libel, a brief Is filed, In which, for the first time, the' point is made that the facts set 1lP In the exceptions cannot be thus raised, but are available only by answer, the court Will consider' the questions presented 'upon the· assumption made by both parties in the argument, that such facts were properly presented, wi1Jhout determining the tecImicalquestion of pleading. . The United States is entitled to but one decree of forfeiture against a vesse}. for Several past violations of the revenue laws, and where a vessel has been once .libeled fOJ! several such violations, and released' on bond, she Is not thereafter subject to a second seizure for alleged violations committed during the same perlofl as those for whIch she has already beenl1leized. The Langdon (''heves, 2 Mason, 59, distinguished.
BREAOHOF REVENUE LAWS ' BUT ONE LIBEL FOR
TO LIBEL-WAIVER OF OBJEOTJONL
ADMIRALTY PRACTICE SEVERAL OFFENSES.
SAME-bENDMllINT OF LIBEr.--DISCOVERY OF NEW OFFENSES.
The United States, uyon finding evidence of violations of the revenue laws COmmitted by a vessel dUl'ing the same period as those for whiidb. she has already been libeled; may avall themselves of such discovery by amen(lIng the libel. Wherlil a vessel libeled for violation of the revenue laws lel released upon a bOnd of doubtful legality, the United States cannot maintain a second libel for other violations 'of the revenue laws, committed during the same period as those for whIch the first libel was filed, Without dismisslng 1Jhe ·first proceeding.
BOND-VAJ,IDITY. . ,
4. SAME-ILLEGAL RELEASE BOND-NEW LIBEL.
A release bon(l for a vessel seized for violation of the revenue laws, Which contAtnsno condition, and is for double the vaJue Of the vessel as if drawtt under Rev. St.§ 941, is valid, under section 938, as an obllga. tion to· pay at least the value of the vessel; since the condition is con· tained in the f;tatute. In a llbe1'by the UnltedStates agaInst a vessel for breach of the revenue that her master attempted to land' Chinese laborers laws, at a port of the United States does not charge a crime. .
SAME-MATTER PLEADED IN ABATEMENT-PRIOR SEIZURB IN ANOTIJER DISTRICT. CKINESlll LABORERS,
A seizure of a vessel for violations of the revenue laws, Rnd her release on bond, may be pleaded .in abatement of a subsequent Ube1 In another district for' iJimllar offenseS committed during the same period as those for which the first libel was filed.
In Admiralty. Libel by the United States against the steamer Haytian Republic for breach of the revenue laws. Heard on claimant's exceptions to the libel. Exceptions sustained. John M. Gearin, Sp. Asst. U, S. Atty. C. A. Dolph, W. H. Gorham, and O. F. Paxton, for claimant. BELLINGER, District Judge. On May 28, 1893, the steamship Haytian Republic was seized at Seattle, in the district of Washing.
ton, as forfeited to the United States for violations of the revenue laws alleged to have been committed at various times between July 28, 1892, and the date of seizure. Subsequently, the vessel was released on the bond of the claimant, in double the amount of her appraised value. Thereafter, in July last, the vessel was again l>eized for a number of other alleged violations of the revenue laws, committed during the same period of time covered by the former charges, at dates extending from July, 1892, to January 27, 1893, and including, also, two charges of violations of the same laws, alleged to have been committed since the release from arrest at Seattle, the latter seizure being made in this district. The claimant filed exceptive allegations to the several articles in the libel and amended libel, relating to alleged offenses committed prior to the arrest and release at Seattle, setting out particularly the proceedings had in the district court for Washington, and submitted with these exceptions a certified transcript of the record of such proceedings. The ground of these exceptions is that the United States, having taken a bond from the claimant in the full appraised value of the vessel on the former arrest, and having released her from such arrest, cannot have recourse again to the vessel, except for offenses committed since such release. The point is made for the first time in the brief filed since the argument, in support of the libel, that the facts set up in the allegations cannot be raised on exceptions, but are available to the defeudant by answer only. In admiralty, exceptive allegations correspond to pleas in abatement and special pleas in bar. A party may set up a single fact in an exceptive allegation, or he may unite the whole, answering as to all the facts, in an answer. Ben. Adm. § 368. The usual course is to set up all matters so relied upon in an answer. The exceptive allegations are, in effect, a special answer. It is immaterial what name is given to them. Courts of admiralty disregard mere technicalities. The circumstances of the case make it important, both to the government and the claimant, that the matters involved in this controversy be speedily determined. I shall not consider whether the facts alleged in an exceptive allegation· must be technically within the knowledge of the court, but shall consider the questions presented by the exceptions upon the assumption made by both parties in the argument, that the facts alleged are proper to be considered by the court in the mode in which they are presented. , It is claimed in support of the libel that, when the claimant secured the release of the vessel upon the bond for her appraised value, he took it subject to all existing liens, and cases are cited which abundantly sustain that view. That there is no distinction as to this between cases where the vessel is held for forfeiture, and other cases, is shown in the case of The Langdon Cheves, 2 Mason, 59, where, in a proceeding of condemnation and forfeiture, the vessel was delivered on bail for the appraised value, and after a final decree of condemnation the amollnt of the appraised value was paid into court. Afterwards, the question arose as to whether