The Schooner Hoppet and Cargo v. the United States

Decision Date19 February 1813
Citation7 Cranch 389,11 U.S. 389,3 L.Ed. 380
PartiesTHE SCHOONER HOPPET AND CARGO v. THE UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Absent. LIVINGSTON, J. and TODD, J.

THIS was an appeal from the sentence of the district Court for the district of Orleans, (exercising the jurisdiction of a Circuit Court of the United States,) condemning the schooner Hoppet and her cargo as forfeited to the United States under the act of congress of March 1, 1809, vol. 9, p. 243, entitled 'An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes.'

The 4th section of that act makes it unlawful 'to import into the United States or the territories thereof, from any foreign port or place whatever, any goods, wares or merchandize whatever, being of the growth, produce or manufacture of France or of any of her colonies or dependencies,' or of any country in the possession of France.

By the 5th section it is enacted, 'that whenever any article or articles, the importation of which is prohibited by this act, shall, after the 20th of May, be imported into the United States or the territories thereof, contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act,' such articles, as well as all other articles on board the same ship or vessel belonging to the owner of such prohibited articles, shall be forfeited.'

And by the 6th section it is enacted, 'that if any article or articles, the importation of which is prohibited by this act, shall, after the 20th of May, be put on board of any ship or vossel,' 'with intention to import the same into the United States or the territories thereof, contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, and this the knowledge of the owner or master of such ship or vessel,' 'such ship or vessel shall be forfeited.'

The information against the vessel did not aver that the goods were put on board the vessel with intention to import the same into the United States or the territories thereof contrary to the act, with the knowledge of the owner or master of the vessel; nor did the information against the cargo state that such of the goods as were not prohibited belonged to the owner of the prohibited goods; but both informations averred generally that the goods were imported contrary to the 4th, 5th and 6th sections of the act.

It appeared from the evidence and admissions in the case that the wines, which constituted the principal part of the cargo, were the produce of France, and had been shipped from New York to the Danish Island of St. Bartholomews, where they were purchased by a merchant of that place and shipped to New Orleans. It did not appear certainly whether they had been imported into New York since the 20th of May, referred to in the act of Congress.

HARPER, for the Appellants,

Contended that it was probable from all the circumstances that the wines had been imported into the United States before the prohibition, and if so they had become incorporated with the general commerce of the country, and had lost their national character as French produce. He also insisted on the defect in the informations, as stated above.

PINKNEY, Attorney General, and LAW, contra.

The letter of the law is too plain to admit of construction. These wines never could cease to be the produce of France. They were imported from a foreign place into a territory of the United States during the prohibition by law. If they had acquired an American character, it was lost by receiving the drawback. It does not appear that they were imported into New York before the prohibition. If they had been, the proof was so easy, that the want of it creates the strongest presumption that the fact was not so.

The intent is only to be known by the act of the owners. They were bound to know the laws of the country to which they were trading. It is sufficient for the United States to prove a knowledge that the goods were put on board for that voyage.

Feb. 27th.

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

This is an appeal from a sentence of the Court for the district of Orleans condemning the schooner Hoppet and her cargo, as forfeited to the United States for violating the non-intercourse law.

In the district Court two informations were filed by the attorney for the United States, one claiming the ship as being forfeited, and the other claiming the cargo. Objections have been made to each of these informations which will be separately considered.

The information against the vessel charges in substance, that while the act, entitled 'An act to interdict commercial intercourse,' &c. was in force, certain goods of the growth, produce, or manufacture of France, were imported into the United States, to wit: into the port of New Orleans, in the said vessel from some foreign port or place, to wit: from St. Bartholomews contrary to, and in violation of the 4th, 5th and 6th sections of the act. By reason of which, and by virtue of the act of congress, entitled 'An act, &c. the said vessel her tackle, apparel and furniture have become forfeited to the United States.

The charge contained in this information, and the only charge it contains is, an importation into the United States of certain prohibited articles while the prohibitory act was in force. How far does this crime affect the vessel?

This question must be answered by the law. The 6th section of the act enacts in substance, that if any article, the importation of which is prohibited, shall be put on board of any ship, &c. with intention to import the same into the United States or the territories thereof, contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, and with the knowledge of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Slack v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 1, 1911
    ...166; State v. O'Donnell, 10 R. I. 472; Bishop Cr. Pro. § 539; Keck v. U. S., 172 U. S. 434 [19 Sup. Ct. 254, 43 L. Ed. 505]; Schooner Hoppett v. U. S., 7 Cranch, 389 ; U. S. v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168 ; State v. Hamlett , 107 S. W. 1012; Bush v. Republic, 1 Tex. 455; Lewis v. State, 2 Tex. App. ......
  • Sutton v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • October 15, 1946
    ...of fact but a legal conclusion of the pleader; it constitutes no part of the description of the offense. In The Hoppet v. United States, 7 Cranch 389, 393, 3 L.Ed. 380, Marshall, C. J., "It is not controverted that in all proceedings in courts of common law, either against the person or the......
  • State v. Coleman
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • October 22, 1974
    ...Sutton v. United States, 157 F.2d 661, 664 (5th Cir.). As Chief Justice Marshall stated long ago in Schooner Hoppet v. United States, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 389, 393, 3 L.Ed. 380: 'It is not controverted that in all proceedings in Courts of common law, either against the person or the thing for......
  • Hendry Co v. Moore
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1943
    ...libel or information in rem on the Exchequer side of the court. And see Chief Justice Marshall's reference, in The Schooner Hoppet v. United States, 7 Cranch 389, 393, 3 L.Ed. 380, to 'proceedings in Courts of common law, either against the person or the thing for penalties or forfeitures'.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT