The Ship That Smuggled Opium: How a Legal Loophole Freed a Vessel and $13,000 in Penalties

An important opium case was decided in the United States court yesterday, and Judge Hanford ordered 1,500 five-pound cans of smuggled opium, which were seized in 1899, to be sold by the custom officers, but he released the steamer *Walla Walla*, which was charged with having brought the contraband drug into this country.

The opium found on board the steamer was never claimed, but Ah Mai, presumably a fictitious person, claimed the 740 cans found in the railroad depot at Tacoma, and had the court decided the second seizure to be not contraband, some Chinaman, in behalf of the real smugglers, would doubtless have called to claim the $13,000 worth of opium.

The *Walla Walla*, her engine, boiler, tackle and furniture, valued at $400,000, was held on the charge of smuggling, and penalties to the amount of $13,000 were to be imposed upon the vessel had the government charges been substantiated, and had Captain D. O. Blackburn, master of the *Walla Walla*, been shown to have knowingly smuggled the opium into the United States in violation of law.

THE WALLA WALLA CASE. On the case of the United States of America against steamship *Walla Walla*, Pacific Coast Steamship Company, claimant. The following is the syllabus by the court:

Vessel employed as a common carrier having been seized to enforce a lien for a penalty under section Revised statutes, there being against the owner: Held, that in the absence of rebutting evidence proof that packages, supposed to contain the contraband goods, were received, transported and delivered as freight in due course of business, and that the master had no knowledge with reference thereto, makes a sufficient case for the plaintiff, and the vessel must be released.

The text of Judge Hanford's opinion is given:

In this case the steamship *Walla Walla*, engaged as a common carrier of freight and passengers on the route between San Francisco and the Puget Sound ports, via Victoria, in British Columbia, was seized on the 18th day of March, 1899, to enforce a lien under section 2730, Revised Statutes, for a penalty alleged to have been incurred by her master by violations of sections 2135 and 2136, Revised statutes.

The circumstances which led to the seizure are as follows:

A short time prior to the arrest of the vessel the custom-house officers discovered and seized at Tacoma two barrels containing 700 pounds of opium prepared for smoking, and about the same time discovered and seized at Ellensburg three other barrels containing 350 pounds of prepared opium. The barrels seized at Tacoma were first discovered in a car en route from Ellensburg by rail via Portland to San Francisco. Those seized at Ellensburg were found in the railroad warehouse. There was no mark on the outside of either of the barrels to indicate that they contained opium, but they seemed to be purposely disguised as to their contents. It was so discovered, and has been proven upon this trial, that in the month of February, 1899, the steamship *Walla Walla* discharged at Tacoma five barrels, two on one trip and three on a different trip, which barrels were similar in all respects as to marks and general appearance to the barrels seized. Manifests or waybills of railroad freight were also delivered at Tacoma at the time of unloading, showing the barrels of similar appearance and marks were brought in the vessel from San Francisco, one of the shipments being destined to Ellensburg, consigned to J. Light, and the other destined to the same place consigned to J. Dark. In the memoranda of railroad freight so delivered at Tacoma, two of the barrels are referred to as containing "sauerkraut," the other three as containing "fish grease"; and it is also proven that none of the five barrels were entered in the ship's manifest delivered at the custom-house at Port Townsend as required by law, upon entering.

From these circumstances a very strong inference arises that the barrels containing this opium are the identical barrels which were unloaded from the *Walla Walla* at Tacoma, and must have been transported in the vessel either from San Francisco or from some other place at which she touched before arrival at Tacoma; and failure to enter such freight in the ship's manifest as required by law, is a circumstance to justify suspicion of complicity on the part of the master in the unlawful importation of this opium, and I consider and will certify that there was probable cause for the accusation against the master in this case sufficient to justify the seizure of the ship, and to throw the burden of proof upon the claimant as provided in section 909, R. S.

On the part of the claimant it is shown by the testimony of the purser and freight clerk, and by the ship's freight book and shipping receipts that barrels corresponding in appearance and marks to those delivered at Tacoma were received as freight in due course of business from San Francisco being delivered on the dock for shipment by a regular transfer company, and receipted for in the usual way, and without any circumstance to justify suspicion on the part of the ship's officers that the barrels contained contraband merchandise and it is also shown that the master had no particular knowledge in regard to the cargo or the barrels in question. The master himself has testified that he had no knowledge whatever in regard to these barrels, or in to any freight transported upon either of the trips in question and not an item mentioned in the manifest. This testimony is reasonable and probably true; at least it is uncontradicted by the testimony of any witness or by any circumstance proven in the case.

Just when the opium was put into the barrels, whether before they were shipped from San Francisco, or whether it was clandestinely loaded into the vessel or into the cars at Victoria, or whether the contents of the barrels were changed after the cars at Ellensburg, can not be determined by the testimony taken upon this trial; and, in either event, no penalty has been incurred for which the ship as a common carrier can be held liable or in any way responsible, unless there was fault on the part of the owner or his agents.

The *Saratoga* Fed. Rep., states that the burden of investigation is upon the claimant, the object of legislation and the policy of the law being to reach the person who commits the offense and not to punish the innocent carrier for the sins of others.

I find accordingly, and a decree dismissing the claimant.