THE CHIQUITA, 18545.

• Decision Date: 10 December 1926
• Docket Number: No. 18545.,18545.
• Citation: 18 F.2d 673
• Parties: THE CHIQUITA.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

18 F.2d 673 (1926)

THE CHIQUITA.^*

No. 18545.

District Court, E. D. Louisiana.

December 10, 1926.

E. E. Talbot, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.

Gex & Russell, of Gulfport, Miss., and W. B. Grant, of New Orleans, La., for claimants.

BURNS, District Judge.

Libelant prays for condemnation of the auxiliary schooner Chiquita, which was apprehended by the United States Coast Guard boat A. B. 8 on the high seas at a point 35 miles off shore in the Gulf of Mexico, laden with alcohol, whisky, and intoxicating liquors. The proceedings are predicated upon a seizure made by the collector of customs for the port of New Orleans, within this Eastern district of Louisiana.

The claimant, Walter K. Hartwig, master of the vessel, as bailee for the owner, contests the seizure on various grounds, contending that the vessel was first brought into the Southern district of Mississippi, because she was towed to a point in Ship Island Channel, within the three-mile limit of the Southern district of Mississippi; that she was anchored there, while the officer in charge of the Coast Guard boat took Capt. Hartwig, of the Chiquita, ashore with him to Biloxi, Miss., in said district, reported the capture to his ranking officer of the Coast Guard Service, by whose instruction he returned aboard with the captain, again took the Chiquita in tow, and brought it into port in New Orleans.

This contention cannot be sustained, because the jurisdiction of this court was secured by a seizure and possession, in the hands of the collector of customs, prior to and at the time of the filing of the libel, so that the process of this court lawfully attached. The authorities sustaining this view are reviewed by the Supreme Court in No. 341, October term, 1926, in the matter entitled William Earl Dodge et al. v. United States of America, 47 S. Ct. 191, 71 L. Ed. ___. The Supreme Court cites The Richmond, 9 Cranch. 102, 3 L. Ed. 670; The Merino, 9 Wheat. 391, 403, 6 L. Ed. 118; The Underwriter (C. C. A.) 13 F.(2d) 433, 434.

The opinion referred to also disposes of claimant's other contentions, based upon the alleged illegality of the capture; that is, that the Coast Guard had no authority to make arrests beyond the four-league limit. The court approves a Circuit Court of Appeals decision which relied on the doctrine expounded by Mr. Justice Story in The Caledonian, 4 Wheat. 100, 4 L. Ed. 523, to the effect that any one may seize any property for a forfeiture to the government, and that, if the government adopts the act and proceeds to enforce the forfeiture by legal process, this is of no less validity than when the seizure is by authority originally given. However effected, the object is brought within the power of the court, which is the end contemplated by the law. Moreover, the capture in this case is justified upon other grounds. In the recent decision in United States v. American Steam Screw Underwriter (C. C. A.) 13 F. (2d) 433, an American vessel in the coastwise trade was seized with a cargo of liquor 35 miles from shore under circumstances very similar to those here, and the legality of the seizure and authority of the Coast Guard were contested unsuccessfully on much the same grounds as are urged here.

It is unnecessary to quote at length from that well-considered opinion, which reversed a decision of the District Court, and has been approved since by the Supreme Court in No. 341, October term, 1926, Dodge v. U. S., cited supra. One of the important points emphasized was that section 581 of the Tariff Act of September 21, 1922 (42 Stat. 979 Comp. St. § 5841h), was intended to give the Coast Guard authority to stop, board, search, and seize foreign vessels within the 12-mile limit upon reasonable grounds appearing that illicit trade, forbidden by the laws of Congress, was being practiced; that it was not intended as a delimitation of the powers of that service forbidding the search, seizure, or detention of American vessels beyond the 12-mile limit. On the contrary, section 619 of the same act (Comp. St. § 5841h39) provides compensation for informers, other than officers of the United States, who may detect and seize such vessels.

Another contention is that the vessel was not liable to seizure because previously she had been sold under a decree of a British court of admiralty in Nassau, Bahamas. A certified copy of this proceeding, filed in evidence, shows that she was then sold to a British subject as an American vessel named Patsy; that he changed her registry to British under the name Æsop, but the certificate of registry shows by indorsement of the British registrar that "this register was closed December 15, 1925. Vessel sold to an alien. Certificate of registry not delivered her owing to same being in hands of United States authorities." The British consul testified that this British registry is not valid. The alien referred to purported to be one Carlos Armador, a citizen of Honduras, residing in Havana, Cuba. A document issued to him by the Honduranian consul in Havana, giving the vessel its latest name, Chiquita, when translated, proved to be but temporary and...