18. Neutrals who place their vessels under bellig-
erent control, and engage them in belligerent trade

30. Where goods destined ultimately for a bellig-
erent port, are being conveyed between two neu-
tral ports by a neutral ship, under a charter made
in good faith for that voyage, and without any
fraudulent connection on the part of her owners
with the ulterior destination of the goods, the
ship, though liable to seizure in order to confisca-
tion of the goods, is not liable to condemnation as
prize.
The Springbok v. U. S.
480

31. Where the cargo was shipped with intent to
violate the blockade, and the owners of the cargo
intended that it should be transshipped at a neu-
tral port into some vessel more likely to succeed in
reaching safely a blockaded port and the voyage to
the blockaded port was, as to cargo, both in law
and in the intent of the parties, one voyage, the
liability to condemnation, if captured during any
part of that voyage, attached to the cargo from the
time of sailing.
480

Idem,

35. Regularly, in cases of prize no evidence is
admissible on the first hearing, except that which

696
40. When a ship is captured as prize of war, she
and her owners are bound by the flag and pass,
under which she sailed.

The William Bagaley v. U. S.
583
41. If the cargo is the property of the same own-
ers, the cargo must follow the fate of the ship.
Idem,
583
42. Interveners in a case of prize who are neither
appellants or appellee cannot be heard.

Idem,

583
43. Property captured, where appeals are allowed
to the circuit court, follows the cause into that
court.
Idem,

583
44. A neutral vessel bound from Liverpool to
Matamoras, with a cargo of general merchandise
and coin, no part of which was contraband, is not
the proper subject of capture.

The Dashing Wave v. U. S.

622
45. A neutral had no right to take, voluntarily,
a position in the immediate presence of the block-
ading fleet, from which merchandise might be so
easily introduced into the blockaded region.
Idem,

622
46. Under such circumstances, capturing and
sending in for adjudication was fully warranted.
Idem,
622

47. A proposal by one that specie should be
shipped as another's property, when seven twelfths
of it belonged to himself, and the circumstance that
he never made claim to any part of it, except
through such other, indicates that he was not a
neutral, but an enemy.

Ídem,

622

53. Mortgagee is not entitled to have the amount
of his mortgage paid to him out of the proceeds

66. Where the evidence showed that a vessel was
purchased and sailed with intent to break the block-
ade, the vessel must be condemned.

U. S. v. The Pearl,

677

67. Where no affidavits of title or neutral owner-
ship of the cargo have been put in, this neglect is
an admission that they are not entitled to restitu-
tion.
677
68. In a case of libel as prize of war, the burden
of proving the neutral ownership of the ship and
cargo is upon the claimants.

Idem,

U. S. v. The Jenny,

693

69. Where there is no proof of such ownership
but the weight of the evidence is that part of the
cargo was owned by a rebel enemy, and that the
same rebel enemy, either alone or with another,
owned the schooner, such part of the cargo and
schooner must be condemned.

Idem,

693

70. Where a case of prize presents a prima facle
case of violation of municipal law, which justifies
further investigation, the judgment dismissing the
libel affirmed, but that part of the decree awarding
restitution of the vessel and cargo reversed, with
directions to allow libelant a reasonable time to
file a new libel.

U. S. v. The Watchful,

763

71. If this is not done within the time thus fixed
by the court, the property to be restored by a
new decree.
Idem,
763
72. Neither an enemy, nor a neutral acting the
part of an enemy, can demand restitution on the
sole ground of capture in neutral waters.
821

The Adela v. U. S.

73. Where there is strong evidence that the title
of a vessel seized as prize was in the claimant, and
the proofs relied on to disprove this evidence are
incompetent, the vessel restored, but without costs.
The Wren v. U. S.
876

1. Effect of a proviso to § 110 of the act of June
30, 1864, was to exclude such savings banks from
the operations of the first clause of the section
as had no capital stock and whose business was
exclusively confined to receiving deposits and loan-
ing the same for the benefit of depositors.
207

Bank for Savings v. The Collector,
2. Subsequent repeal of that proviso left the sub-
stantive part of the section in full force, as if it had
never been subject to any such qualification.
Idem,
207

22. The legislature has no power to select par-
ticular persons, or companies, or particular articles
of property, to bear the exclusive burdens of taxа-
tion.

Idem,

23. Tax held invalid as assessed in contravention

614
13. Securities issued by the United States cannot
be taxed by the states.
Society for Saving v. Coite,
897

907

907

Idem,
24. A property tax is void where public securi-
ties are included in the basis of computation.
Idem,

907
25. Securities of the United States are exempt
from state taxation, and such immunity extends to
the capital stock of a corporation, if made up of
such public funds.
Idem,
907
26. State taxes imposed on the nominal capital of
a bank without regard to value may be sustained.
Idem,
907
27. Shares in the national banks are subject to
state taxation although the whole amount of the
capital stock is invested in public securities.
Idem,
907

1. The test oath imposed by the Constitution of
Missouri is a violation of that provision of the Con-
stitution of the United States which provides that
"no state shall pass any bill of attainder or
post facto law."

Cummings v. Missouri,
356
2. Where a priest of the Roman Catholic Churen