The Josephine — 70 U.S. 83 (1865)

70 U.S. 83 (1865) 3 Wall. 83 THE JOSEPHINE. Supreme Court of United States. *87 Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Ashton, and Mr. Coffey, special counsel for the captors. Mr. F.C. Brewster, of Philadelphia, contra, for the claimants of the cargo. *92 The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. It was held at the last term, by this court, that the blockade of the coast of Louisiana, having no direct connection with New Orleans by navigation, was not terminated by the discontinuance of the blockade of that port. In the cause now before us it is not very clearly shown by the evidence from what part of the coast the Josephine was coming when she was captured by the blockading steamer; but she must have been coming from some point west of Ship Shoal light, which is laid down on the Coast Survey charts as more than a hundred miles west of the mouths of the Mississippi. In this part, it seems, the coast may be reached from New Orleans, in some seasons at least, through the creeks and bayous which form a sort of network of water communication in Lower Louisiana, and allow more or less egress and ingress by small craft, to and from the Gulf. There does not appear to be any regular or usual communication with New Orleans from the Gulf by these ways. The Josephine succeeded in getting through, but the whole country through which she passed, and the coast where she came out, was in possession of the enemy; and she was captured by a blockader soon after she entered the Gulf. It is impossible, under these circumstances, to hold that the blockade of that part of the coast was discontinued. That it was not discontinued in fact, is clearly shown by the evidence; and there was nothing in the occupation of the city, or in the proclamation revoking the blockade of the port *93 of New Orleans which could work the legal termination of blockade of the coast which remained under hostile control. We think that the blockade was in full force, and that the Josephine and her cargo were properly captured for violation of it. The appellant has filed an affidavit that the master of the Josephine was seeking the blockading fleet with the purpose of procuring a license to proceed on his voyage; but the statement of the master not only does not support the affidavit, but goes far to discredit it. Nor, indeed, could the alleged intent, if proved, avail the appellant; for it would not excuse the violation of the blockade. This view makes it unnecessary to consider the questions made in the cause, respecting the ownership of the vessel and cargo, or the motion for further proof. The decree of the District Court must be AFFIRMED. [See infra, p. 231, The Cheshire, 2. REP.]

Public-domain opinion of the United States Supreme Court, reproduced from the court record (U.S. Reports). Historical text may contain OCR artifacts. Provided for reference — not legal advice.