Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/253

UNITED STATES V. STONE. 239 �possession of the owner, there seems to arise an irresistible teroptation to ap- propriate it in the minds of men tent on plunder for the love of it, and ofteu' even wheire the man wbuld scom to be caught in the odious crime of stealin^ from his neighbor. Thej do not look upon it as stealing, and perhapa it is not ; but it is plundering, and it is just that offence this statute punishes when committed of goods that are wrecked. Now, I do not hesitate to say that where a man, under the influence of excitement and sudden temptation, yields to this impulse of taking for hiniself what seems lost, and is not a prof essional wrecker and plunderer, he deserves consideration in the matter of mitigatlng the punifihment prescribed by this statute, but it in no sense excuses the crime or authorizes acquittai at your hands. If the law imposed on you the duty of fixing the puniehment, I ghould tell you to consider whether such mitigatlng circumstance existed in this case; but it does not, and you have nothing todo with it. It ia a matter for the court, whose discretion is unlimited by the statute, to consider those facts, if any there be, which mitigate the punish- ment. �"If a vessel be wrecked, or in distress, and goods afloat, I do not say it is the duty of any one to rescue them for the owner in any other sense than it is his duty to help all who are in peril of life or property ; but it iS his right, and in our admiralty and maritime law the service is always rewarded Iby salvage. With a lawf ul purpose, therefore, this defendant had a right to rescue the goods, if afloat, and no presumption is against him from the mere act of taking them while so afloat. But, if you flnd he took them from the wreck itself, inasmuch as that was not abandoned or deserted, but under the coutrol and in the possession of those who had the i-ight of possession, the de-' fftndant had no right to go upon it to rescue gooas, even to save them; and there would be a presumption of wrongful intent from the mere taking itself, unless it were explained to be for some rightf ul purpose. The lawful pur- pose with which he might rescue them is to keep them for restoration to the owner upon payment of his salvage dues, or, in default of agreement'as to that, to libel them in the proper court by delivering them to the court for a settle- ment of the salvage claim. Taking them with any other intcnt is uiilawf ul, and a violation of this statute. The intent miist be proved by the acts of tiie accused; and where he is a competent witness, as here, he may, I thihk, speak to his intent and say for himself what it was. But if he testifles to an intent that is inconsistent with his acts, he is unworthy of bellef as to that intent. Hemayexplain his acts, and show how they are consistent with what'he sayg his intent was, but the explanation must satisfactoi-ily show the consist- ency. A man cannot appropriate the goods of another to hi^ own use apd say he intended no wrong thereby, if he knows they did not belong to him, but to a vessel wrecked or in distress. He has no fair colOr bt right or title to goods belonging to a Veasel so situated; and, if he knows thein to so belbng, he cannot appi-opriate them to his own use or destroy them withollt guilt under this statute, no matter what he may have thought as to his right to so appropriate them. The essential elements of the offence are : �"'(1) A vessel wrecked or in distress, and within the admiralty or mari- time jurisdiction of the United States; and as to this there is no dispute. {2)f' Taking goods either from or belonging to this vessel with a knowledge that' ��� �