Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

The waist of the said vessel good, but requiring some repairs, 52 feet keel, and 65 feet from stem to stern, about 18 feet broad, 7 feet hold, having a bulk head for. ward and another abaft, one state room with 6 births.

Signed in the original French.

Michel. Rouge.

Bressat and
Domingeaux,

Notaries.

Taken from the minutes of these presents remaining in the custody of the said Domingeaux, notary.

Collated.

Bressat, Notary.
Domingeaux, Notary.

We, the mayor and municipal officers of the town and province of Port de Paix, island and coast of St. Domingo, (the controlled stamped paper and small seal not being in use) certify to all those whom it may concern, that Bressat and Domingeaux are notaries of the Republick in this district, that the above signatures by them in the said quality, are their true signatures, to which faith should be given as well in as out of court.

In faith whereof we have delivered the present, which [L. s.] we have signed and sealed with the seal of the municipality.

Given at Port de Paix, in the town house, the 21st Thermidor, 3d year of the French Republick, one and indivisible.

Desbordes, Mayor.

Vt. Richard, N.

Bintarvet, N.

Berthoumeux, C.G.

Desperbesque, N.

Thomas Dully, M. Officer.

I do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original.

Copy.

TROUP, Clerk of the District Court of the U. States for the district of New-York.

P. A. ADET.

No. 79.

Nath. Falconer, Esq. to Alex. J. Dallas, Esq. Secretary of the Commonwealth. Warden's Office, July 3, 1795.

SIR, I beg leave to inform you, in regard of the schooner Rose, that she cleared out at the customhouse, on the 18th day of March, under the name of the Dorada. I never heard of her being permitted to clear out at the collector's office, until the 21st of the month, which I heard from the collector himself, that she was permitted to clear out. The complaint coming from the collector and surveyor, I concluded that the officers of government were satisfied that there was no augmentation of force, or they would not have permitted her clearing out for the West Indies. I applied to the governour for an order to let her pass the fort, which he gave at his own house to the officers of the fort, to let her pass on pro ducing her clearance from the collector of the port, which I transmitted to the fort. I am, &c.

True copy..

N. FALCONER, Master Warden of
the port of Philadelphia.
P. A. ADET.

No. 80.

Extract of a Letter from the Secretary of State to Richard Harrison, Esq. District Attorney of New York, dated Oc tober 1, 1795.

"HEREWITH I transmit the translations of a letter of the 24th ultimo and other papers received from Mr. Adet the minister of the French Republick, relative to the privateer La Vengeance, arrested by process from the district court. of New York, and her Spanish prize libelled in the same court. I beg you will again examine this business, and as early as possible favour me with such information as will enable me to make an answer to Mr. Adet, that may or ought to be satisfactory."

No. 81.

The Secretary of State, to Mr. Adet, Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick. Department of State, October 16, 1795.

SIR, A divided attention between two departments, I must pray you to accept as an apology for my delays in answering your letters and communicating expected information.

I now enclose an extract of a letter from Mr. Harrison, the district attorney for New York, relative to the priva teer La Vengeance and her prize; by which you will perceive that whatever may be the event of the suits pending in court, concerning her and her prize, the publick officer, Mr. Harrison, is supported in his proceedings, by the laws and usages of this country, upon such evidence and information, as in the case referred to, were produced. I am very respectfully, sir, &c.

TIMOTHY PICKERING.

No. 82.

Extract of a Letter from Richard Harrison, Esq. District Attorney of New York, to Colonel Pickering, dated October 3, 1795.

THESE observations will naturally lead to the case of the privateer La Vengeance, against which two suits have been brought on behalf of the United States; the suit against the prize being of a private nature, wherein as attorney of the United States, I have no concern.

It is rather extraordinary that the mere institution of these suits for offences against the laws of our country, should be considered as a just cause of complaint by the agents of a foreign nation; since until the final sentence of the constitutional tribunals, it cannot be legally discerned whether the complaints are well founded, vexatious, or properly instituted upon probable cause, though the scale of evidence may finally preponderate in favour of the accused.

Without adverting, however, to this point with the particularity it may deserve, I proceed to observe, that previous to the commencement of the first suit, such information was given as afforded, in my judgment, a probable cause for the prosecution. This did not arise, as the French minister supposes, from simple suspicions, or the mere allegation of the Spanish consul. That gentleman laid before me papers, carrying every appearance of authenticity, relative to the fitting out and arming of the privateer, and I had assurances upon which I could depend, that direct evidence would be produced of illegal measures for this purpose, taken either in Philadelphia or elsewhere in the river Delaware.

Under these circumstances I judged it my duty to proceed officially, for the only breach of law with which I was then acquainted, and I should have esteemed myself culpable if I had neglected to do so. It was sufficient that I was assured of having the evidence at a proper time to manifest the propriety of the suit, and before that time, it was unnecessary to possess it. Neither the laws of the country, nor the practice of our courts required the filing of any previous affidavit where the suit was commenced by the attorney of the United States on their behalf; and such a practice might often be attended with pernicious consequences, by disclosing the name of the person who gave the information, and the nature of the evidence to be produced. Whatever, therefore, may be the ideas of persons unacquainted, or but little acquainted with our laws, must be wholly immaterial upon this subject; but they may rest assured that I should never resort to any mere pretences in justification of my conduct, and I may safely challenge any person to produce the law which would render such an affidavit necessary, unless in case of a common informer.

The first suit against the privateer having been thus commenced, the testimony of her illegal armament within the United States, has been actually furnished by more than one witness; but in the course of the hearing such a variety of clashing and contradictory evidence was produced, that it became impossible to foresee the event. This, you may remember, was at a very early period said to be problematical, though no doubt was entertained that

[blocks in formation]

probable cause would appear to justify the seizure and detention.

During the time of exhibiting the testimony in the cause originally commenced, it appeared in evidence by the showing of the claimant's witnesses that the privateer had been employed in exporting ammunition from the United States, at a period when such exportation was prohibited. Had the fact been known in season, it would have formed a charge in the original suit; but that not being the case, as soon as I was informed upon the subject it became my duty to file another libel for an apparent breach of the law, subjecting the vessel to condemnation. It was indeed in evidence that the ammunition exported came from a French frigate lying in this harbour; but the law had made no exception for such a case, and to imply one would have furnished the means of evading all its salutary provisions.

From this detail it must be evident, that my conduct in the commencement of the second as well as of the first suit, was dictated by the duty incident to the office which I have the honour to hold. In the execution of that duty I am incapable of violating decency, or outraging any person; especially those who, from their connection with this country, or their publick character, are entitled to respect.

Had the commencement of the second suit been deferred until the termination of the first, there might have been more colour for complaint; since in that case, the privateer might have undergone a second detention; whereas in the present mode of proceeding, the claimant, if he thought proper, might bring both suits to a close at nearly the same period.

In this whole business, however, I have undoubtedly acted from my own opinion, founded upon such evidence as came to my knowledge; and as, in similar cases, I must necessarily in the first instance be unacquainted with the opinions and convictions of others, I know of no other rule by which I can be guided, unless when I am honoured with the directions of the chief executive magistrate.

It would perhaps be unnecessary, if not improper for me to enter into a minute discussion of the papers produced by the French minister, or the evidence respecting the

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »