Case ID: us-ct-cl_36/html/0378-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WelüON, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE SHIP AMAZON.
    EDWARD D. SOHIER AND CHARLES A. WELCH, Trustees of MASSACHUSETTS FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. THE UNITED STATES. SETH P. SNOW, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. FRAZER D. HEAD, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. CHARLES F. ADAMS; Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. JAMES G. FREEMEN, Receiver, v. THE UNITED STATES. ARTHUR P. CUSHING, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. CHARLES F. ADAMS, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. THOMAS N. PERKINS, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. WILLIAM VERNON, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. A. LAWRENCE LOWELL, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. FRANK DABNEY, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. SETH P. SNOW, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. SETH P. SNOW, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. FRANCIS M. BOUTWELL, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. WILLIAM ROPES TRASK, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. CHARLES K. COBB, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [French spoliations, 2233, 2237, 2733, 2836, 2890, 2891, 3192, 4212, 4213, 4728, 6356.
    Decided May 6, 1901.]
    
      
      On the Proofs.
    
    In 1800 a French privateer hoists the American flag and gives chase under the same colors. At half gunshot distance she lowers the American flag, hoists French colors, and fires a shot. The Amazon hoists the American flag, but continues her flight. The privateer then fires into her. The master holds a .consultation with his officers as to what is proper to be done, and they determine to oppose the hostile attack. The action continues nearly five hours, when they haul down their flag and surrender.
    I. The facts appearing in this case do not take it out of the previous decision in the Eose, decided April 22, 1901.
    II. A greater or less determined resistance with greater or less loss of life and injury does not change or affect the law relating to resistance to search.
    
      The Reporters' statement of the case:
    The following are the facts of the case as found by the-court.
    I. The ship Amazon, Israel Trask, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about the llth day of June, 1800, from Nantasket Roads, the outer harbor of Boston, bound for Cadiz or Malaga. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized- on the high seas on or about the 6th day of July, 1800, by the French privateer La Mouche, and carried into the port of Corunna, in Spain, and vessel and cargo libeled before the council of prizes at Paris, where, on the 30th day of August, 1801 (13 Fructidor, year 9), it was decreed that vessel and cargo be restored to Capt. Israel Trask in the condition in which they are, and in case of a sale the proceeds to be given up, with a deduction of all expenses lawfully incurred. In pursuance of above decree, the Amazon was restored to Captain Trask September 24, 1801, after a detention of fourteen months and eighteen days.
    II. The circumstances attending the seizure of the Amazon are set forth in the protest of the master, dated at Corunna on the 14th day of July, 1800, as follows, viz:
    “That he departed with said vessel, well dispatched, stored, manned, and provided with eveiy necessary for undertaking the voyage. That he continued on his destination with all possible expedition, with moderate winds and fair weather, until the 6th instant, when, being in 40 degrees of north latitude and 26 degrees of longitude west of London, a sail was discovered in the south, about 8 o’clock in the morning. They 'observed her following in the same course as the vessel under his command, which was to the southeast, and he perceived within a few minutes she wore around and came to pass by his weather beam at the distance of half a league, and came up until she placed herself in his wake, then hoisted the American flag, and continued giving them chase under the same colors. He crowded a little after all his sails, continuing the chase, which was about half after 8 in the morning, and this confirmed the fear which they had that she was an enemy, on account of which they immediately set all their sails for the greater advantage of the vessel, and they started six casks of water to lighten her, in order to make her sail faster. They observed, notwithstanding, that the vessel which chased them gained, and that at length in a short time she would come up alongside of them, provided the wind should continue from the same quarter.
    “About half after 12 she came up at the distance of about half a gunshot, and then lowered the American flag. She hoisted the French national flag, and a few minutes after-wards fired one of her bow chasers with ball and grape, and immediately the ship of the deponent hoisted her American flag at the mizzen peak. Soon afterwards she fired another gun with ball and grape, which passed over the vessel of deponent, then he took the determination of consulting with his officers upon what was proper to be done in this situation, and after having maturely considered the situation of his country with the French Eepublic in regard to the navigation of American ships, and the moral certainty of being captured by the French cruisers after the innumerable instances of other ships of the same nation in similar situations, as also the reflection on the examples of the cruel atrocities committed on American crews by several privateers under the French national flag, and fearing that this might be one of that class, as he had a license from his Government to carry guns for the express purpose of defending himself from the hostile .attacks of vessels which should sail with the national flag, on the high seas, they determined, as the means most eligible to save their persons and property, to oppose all their forces to the hostile attack, which continued on the part of the vessel which chased them; and the consultation being finished, this resolution determined upon, the' crew was placed at their different posts, and thus they waited until the enemy should ■come nearer, in order to see if he continued in firing on them, and observing that the nearer he approached increased his firing, after having received numerous broadsides of ball and grape, which cut his sails and broke his rigging considerably, some part of the grape entering by the stern, then they began to defend themselves, being a little more than 1 o’clock, with the enemy on their weather quarter.
    
      
      ‘1 The action continued in the same position with great vigor on both sides for about two hours, or something less, at the distance of pistol-shot, in which time the vessel under bis, command suffered much damage in the sales and rigging; the. enemy afterwards bore across his stern with an intention, as he presumed, of raking them, but during the action, having-set all his sales, following his course, they were able to gain sufficient distance and to prevent his intention, but the enemy did nothing else but change his position, placing himself alongside on their lee quarter, and again recommenced the action with vigor, continuing till 6 in the afternoon, in which time he had 1 man killed and the second officer dangerously wounded; the mizzen topmast and mizzen-gaff carried away, and only the bare pole of the mizzen-mast remained, the braces and sheets torn, with the foretop-sail shot in pieces, with the greatest part of the shrouds and running cut away.
    “In this condition, with no appearance of preventing their being taken, the deponent consulted with Mr. Amory, who-was interested in part of the cargo, under whom, jointly with the deponent, the management of the voyage is intrusted, and with Mr. Boudwitch, the first officer, upon the expediency of making more resistance in that condition against forces so superior, and it was determined that it would be imprudence and only to seek destruction and death to be obstinate; and then, with the greatest regret, he ordered the flag to be hauled down, which was done; notwithstanding which the firing of musketry and blunderbusses against the vessel of the deponent continued some minutes after having-surrendered, which made them believe that they had fallen into the hands of those who had so cruelly treated their countrymen; but, in honor of truth, of the captain and of the officers of the French cruiser La Mouche, de Bordeaux, which he knew the said vessel was called, he ought to say that their conduct was very different from the fears which they had inspired; and in respect to the damages and injuries which arise from this unjust detention, or which will arise till she is Elaced at liberty, he protests against the captain of the cruiser, er owners, the concerned, the insurers, and against whom it ma3r be necessary, as he swears, according to the institutions of his religion, before me, the notary, and the witnesses who have been so of all this.”
    III. The decree of the council of prizes, after reciting the particulars of the seizure of the Amazon and giving an analysis of the papers found on board, proceeds as follows, viz:
    “Taking into consideration the memorial presented the 17 th Vendemiaire, year 9, to the council of prizes, by the brothers La Pell, owners of the privateer La Mouche, in which, after attempting to establish the legality of the capture of the Amazon—
    “ First. On account of the ownership of the cargo, the neutrality of which they have pretended was not legally established.
    “ Second. On account of resistance to the summons and the battle which ensued, they concluded byprajung that the council would declare the capture good and adjudge to them the said ship and her appurtenances, as well as the merchandise composing her cargo, to be sold and the proceeds thereof to be distributed conformably to law.
    “Considering the memorial presented the 9 Brumaire last by Captain Trask, and in which, after appealing to the provisions of the convention of the 8 Vendemiaire, year 9, and observing that the voyage of the Amazon was protected by two documents required by this convention, the passport and the certificate of the cargo, and that there is, moreover, furnished for the defense of the cargo a certificate from the American custom-house, which alone ought to have a decisive influence in its' defense; that finally the two powers have agreed that nothing in addition to such justification should be demanded from vessels of the United States, and that they should be restored upon these proofs without other documents, notwithstanding any rule to the contrary, he concludes by praying-that the council would declare null and void the capture of the Amazon, and decree that the said vessel and her cargo should be restored to him, the petitioner, and that the owners of the privateer La Mouche should be condemned in interest and damages.
    “Considering the conclusions of the commissary of the Government, which have been this day filed in writing in the bureau, and the tenor of which follows:
    “The 17th Messidor, year 8, the privateer La Mouche fell in with the Amazon, gave chase to and discharged at her a shotted gun to oblige her to show her flag, which she did, but without bringing to. The privateer having discharged a second gun at her to make her bring to, the Amazon answered by discharging a number of shotted guns, continuing her course. An action then took place between the two ships and. the Amazon was obliged to strike her flag and surrender. The captain being questioned why he had not obeyed the first summons, answered conformably to the proces-verbal of the captured that his intentions were to defend himself, and that in firing upon the privateer he had hopes of damaging some of her masts and consequently of escaping.
    “The ship was manned out and carried into Corunna, where the captain of the prize made his declaration before the commissary of commercial relation of the French Republic. It results from the answers of the captain that he is named Israel Trask; that he is from Gloucester in the United States; that he had a crew of 26 men; that the ship was armed with 11 cannon, of which 8 were of 4, and 3 of 6 pounds; that the ship belonged to Thomas Amory, Marston Watson, Joseph Head, Jonathan Amory, Stephen Codman, and Nathaniel Amory, all citizens of Boston, in America, from whence he sailed bound for Cadiz or Malaga with an assorted cargo of colonial merchandise; that she sailed under the American flag; he acknowledged that he was determined to maintain an action bjr a knowledge that many vessels of his nation have been plundered and their crews murdered by privateers carrying the French flag, and that he was apprehensive. that he was chased by a vessel of this description. A passenger on board, who calls himself supercargo, says that the ship was laden with sugar; cocoa, and fish. The rest of his answers are conformable to those of the others who have been interrogated.
    “This instruction has been addressed to the council, with the papers which were on board, which consisted of a Turkish passport, a regular passport of the United States in the form required by the treaty of 1778, a role of equipage granted bj7 the public officers, bills of health, a document respecting ownership of the vessel, the register, the invoice of the merchandise, the bill of lading of the cargo signed by the captain, the certificate of the custom-house, and finally all the papers required and in the form prescribed in the treaty between France and the United States.
    “Although the privateer had provoked the battle, although she might be responsible for having made the summons with a shotted gun, she had a little more than lawful for the capture, if it nad not been for the treaty of the 8 of Vendemiaire last. This treaty has intervened when the two nations were considered in a condition respectively of hostility. It is less a, treaty of commerce than a treaty of peace, which, by its conditions ought necessarily to efface the respective wrongs and revive that union and good understanding which had preceded them. This treaty, without doubt, would be an event unfortunate for any other but French citizens; but the Frenchman loves his country too well not to sacrifice his personal interests to the interests of the state, and .it is only this that the treaty has for its object. Besides the cause is only a delegation of the Government; this delegation is always subordinate to the greatest interest of the State and to the various accidents which this interest may compromise. Her owners ought, of course, to have foreseen and calculated these accidents, because war necessarily brings peace, and peace, necessary to the good of the whole, always brings evil to some individuals.
    
      “For these considerations I have concluded upon a restoration of the ship and cargo without, damages or interest.
    “Determined at Paris, the 13th Fructidor, year 9th.
    - “Giraud.”
    “ The report of Citizen Niou, member of the council, being heard, thoroughly examined, and considered—
    “ The council, conformably to the fourth article of the convention concluded the 8th Yendemiarie, year 9, between the-French Republic and the United States of America, as well as to the letter of the minister of foreign relations of the 29th Thermidor last, hath decreed that the American ship Amazon, captured by the French privateer La Mouche, together with the cargo, in the condition in which they are, and. in case of a sale of any of the aforesaid articles the proceeds of the sale legally made shall be given up and restored to the-said Captain Israel Trask, together with the documents and papers of the ship, with a deduction of all expenses lawfully incurred.
    “To which end, as well the owners of the said privateer as all keepers, consignees, sequestrators, and depositories, shall be constrained by all proper and reasonable means, even cor-porally, doing which, they are discharged. Upon the demand ' of said Captain Trask for damages and interest and other indemnities the parties are dismissed.
    “Done by the council of prizes, sitting at the Oratorio, at Paris, the thirteenth of Fructidor, year nine of the French Republic, one and indivisible.
    “Berlier, President.
    
    “Niou.”
    IY. The Amazon was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 369-H tons burden, built at Salem, Mass., in the year 1798, and was owned in the following proportion: Mars-ton Watson, three-tenths; Thomas Amory, three-tenths; Head & Amory, two-tenths; Stephen Codman, one-tenth, and Nathaniel Amory, one-tenth.
    The firm of Head & Amory consisted of Joseph Head and Jonathan Amory. Joseph Head was the surviving partner.
    All of the above owners of the Amazon were citizens of the United States and residents of Boston, Mass.
    Y. The cargo of the Amazon, at the time of seizure, consisted of butter, nankeen, porter, sugar, cigars, staves, fish, tea, and rum, and was owned by Marston Watson, Nathaniel Amory, T. C. Amory, Israel Trask, and Henry Boit. Several of the seamen also had adventures on board, for which no claim is made.
    VI. Marston Watson, Thomas Amory, and the other owners of the vessel and cargo insured their interests in same in the office of the Massachusetts Fire and Marine Insurance Company, the Boston Marine Insurance Company, and in the office of Peter C. Brooks, the last-named policy being underwritten by sundry persons hereinafter set forth.
    Thereafter said insurance companies and underwriters effected an adjustment with said owners of vessel and cargo, by which said owners were fully paid for all losses growing out of the seizure and detention of the Amazon.
    VII. Stephen Codman,being one-tenth owner of the Amazon, insured the same with the Massachusetts Fire and Marine Insurance Company in the sum of §3,000, paying therefor a premium of 8 per cent, by a policy dated the 26th day of June, 1800. December 1, 1800, the said company duly paid the said Codman the sum of $2,970 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises.
    Thereafter the said company received the sum of $689 as salvage, leaving a final loss to said company the sum of $2,281. The said company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts authorized and empowered to carry on the business of marine and other insui’ance.
    VIII. July 25, 1800, the Boston Marine Insurance Company insured Thomas C. Amory in the sum of $5,000 on cargo, at a premium of 6 per cent.
    November 12, 1800, the said company duly paid to said Thomas C. Amory the sum of $5,000 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. '
    October 5, 1802, the said company received as salvage on the portion of said policy covering part of the cargo owned by said Thomas C. Amory the sum-of $2,194.80, leaving the loss to said company thereon the sum of $805.20.
    January 18, 1803, said company received as salvage on the portion of said policy covering said vessel the sum of $551.20, leaving the loss to said company thereon the sum of $1,448.80.
    What interest the said Thomas C. Amory had in the vessel does not appear, nor has any person claiming to represent his estate appeared in this case,
    
      July 26, 1800, said Boston Marine Insurance Company insured said Marston Watson on his interests in said vessel and cargo in the sum of $20,000, at a premium of 6 per cent.
    June 5, 1802, said company duly paid to Thomas Davis, administrator of j;he estate of Marston Watson, the sum of $5,135.73 in full as and for a partial loss by reason of the premises.
    The total loss to said company was as follows, viz:
    On Thomas 0. Amory’s policy on vessel. SI, 448. 80
    On Thomas O. Amory’s policy on cargo. 805.20
    On Marston Watson’s policy on vessel and cargo. 5,135. 73
    Total. 7, 389. 73
    The Boston Marine Insurance Company is a corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Massachusetts, authorized and empowered to carry on the business of marine insurance.
    IX. Messrs. Head & Amory, being part owners of the Amazon, insured the same in the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of $6,000, paying therefor a premium of 8 per cent, by a policy dated’ Juty II, 1800. Thereafter, December 5, 1800, the said Brooks, as agent, duty paid the assured the said sum of $6,000 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises.' December 28, 1802, said Brooks, as agent, received as salvage on said policy the sum of $1,363.20, leaving' a final loss to the underwriters the sum of $4,636.80, being 77.28 per cent of the amount underwritten. Said policy was underwritten by the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States. The amount underwritten and the loss paid by each was as here stated:
    Underwriter.
    Underwrote.
    Paid.
    John 0. Jones. Crowell Hatch. Cornelius Durant.., Wm, H. Boardman. John McLean. $1,500.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 500.00 $1,159.20 772. SO 772. SO 772.80 386.40
    Total. 6,000.00 4,636.80
    Said Marston Watson, being part owner of said vessel and cargo, insured the same in the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of §15,000; paying therefor a premium of 8 per cent, by ■a policy dated July 14, 1800. Thereafter, August 17, 1801, said Brooks, as agent, duty paid the sum of §15,000, as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. December 28, 1802, said Brooks, as agent, received as salvage on said policy the sum of §13,078.07, leaving a final loss to the underwriters of the sum of §1,921.93, being 12.8128 per cent of the amount underwritten. Said policy was underwritten by the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States. The amounts underwritten and loss paid was as here stated:
    Underwriter.
    Underwrote.
    Paid.
    Crowell Hatch. Wm. Smith.. Samuel Brown.. Nathaniel Fellowes. John McLean. Benjamin Homer Samuel W. Pomeroy.. Wm. Clapp.. Richard Derby, jr_ Daniel D. Rogers. Tuthill Hubbart. John C. Jones.. $1,000.00 1,000.00 2,000,00 2,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 500.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 500.00 ' 8128.13 128.13 256.24 256.25 128.13 128.14 256.25 128.14 64.07 128.14 256.24 64.07
    Total. 15,000.00 1,921.83
    Said Henry Boit was the owner of a certain invoice of cigars on said vessel. He insured the same in the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of §1,200, at a premium of 8 per cent, by a policy dated July 24, 1800, by Stephen Gorham, a citizen of the United States. On May 29, 1801, a total loss was paid by reason of the premises to said Boit. January 6, 1803, said Brooks, as agent, received as salvage on said policy the sum of §490.78, leaving as a final loss to said underwriter the sum of §709.22.
    Said Israel Trask, master of the Amazon and owner of certain effects on board, insured the same in the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of §2,000, paying therefor a premium of 6 per cent, by a policy dated June 12, 1800. April 13, 1802, said Brooks, as agent, duty paid to said Trask the sum of §461.20, as and for a partial loss by reason of the premises. Said policy was underwritten by the following persons, both of whom were citizens of the United States. The amount underwritten and loss paid by each was as here stated:
    Underwriter.
    Underwrote.
    Paid.
    John C. Jones— Tuthill Hubbart. SI, 000.00 1,000.00 §230.60 230.60
    The losses to the said insurance companies and underwriters by reason of the amounts paid on said policies, so far as claims have been filed in this court, were as follows:
    Massachusetts Fire and Marine Insurance Company.$2, 281.00
    Boston Marine Insurance Company. 5,939.93
    Peter C. Brooks. 4,541.52
    Crowell Hatch. 900. 93
    John C. Jones. 1,453.85
    Samuel Brown. 256.24
    Nathaniel Fellowes. 256. 25
    Samuel W. Pomeroy. • 256.25
    After said payments, to wit, on December 16,1801, for and in consideration of $3,715.50 and the assumption of all responsibility of William Smith as insurer in the office of Peter Chardon Brooks, said Smith assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said business.
    November 2Í, 1801, Stephen Gorham, in consideration of $2,986.65 to him paid by Peter Chardon Brooks, and the assumption by the said Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in said Brooks’s office, assigned to the said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all the insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks.
    February 8,1802, Isaiah Knapp, executor of John McLean, for and in consideration of $3,000 to him paid, transferred to Peter Chardon Brooks all of his interest as an assurer of him, the said John McLean, in the office of him, the said Brooks, together with any interest of said McLean in any property which was or might be recovered as an assurer to any adjudicated or condemned property.
    July 22,1803, the said Peter Chardon Brooks paid William Clapp $1,673.49, and assumed all his liabilities as an underwriter in the office of the said Peter Chardon Brooks, and in consideration thereof, on the same day, the said William Clapp transferred to the said Peter Chardon Brooks all of his interest in said business.
    January 7, 1804, the said Peter Chardon Brooks paid the said C. Durant the sum of $181.77 for all of his interest in underwriting in the office of the said Peter Chardon Brooks, said Brooks assuming all liabilities thereon, and in pursuance thereof the said C. Durant executed a written transfer of all of said interest, with its advantages and disadvantages.
    October 19,1804, Daniel Denison Rogers, in consideration of $3,400 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in said Brooks’s office, assigned to the said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all the underwriting done by him in the office of the said Brooks.
    November 15, 1804, the said Peter Chardon Brooks paid to the said William H. Boardman $13,250, for and in full of the entire interest paid to the said Peter Chardon Brooks or to the said William H. Boardman in the underwriting business done in the office of the said Peter Chardon Brooks, with all of its advantages and disadvantages, the said Peter Chardon Brooks being in all respects substituted for the said William H. Board-man, and on the same day the said William H. Boardman executed an instrument of writing transferring the same absolutely to the said Peter Chardon Brooks.
    July 23, 1805, Benjamin Homer, in consideration of $5,000 and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in said Brooks’s office, to him paid by Peter Chardon Brooks, assigned to the said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all the underwriting done bj'' him in the office of the said Brooks.
    April 4, 1808, Tuthill Hubbart, in consideration of $60,000 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks, assigned unto the said Brooks .all his right, title, and interest in and to all the insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of the said Brooks.
    No person claiming to represent Richard Derby, jr., has appeared in this case.
    No. 4212. Seth P. Snow, administrator of Crowell Hatch. The loss claimed In this petition is hereinbefore set out under No. 3192 and is consolidated therewith.
    No. 4213. Seth P. Snow, administrator of Crowell Hatch, and Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of John McLean. The loss claimed in this petition is hereinbefore set out under No. 3192 and is consolidated therewith.
    The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates of the various parties for whom they appear, and said trustees and receivers have -been duty appointed. The claimants have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons or companies for whom they have filed claims are in fact the same parties who suffered loss by reason of the seizure of the ship Amazon, as set forth in the preceding findings.
    Said claims were riot embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed or paid in whole or in part under the provisions of. the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the '22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831.
    The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims which have never been assigned except as aforesaid.
    
      Mr. W. T. 8. Gurtis for the claimants. Mr. J. M. Wilson, Mr. T. J. Pickett, Mr. II. M. Earle, and Mr. George 8. Bout-well were on briefs.
    
      Mr. Charles W. Bussell (with whom was Mr. Assistcmt Attorney- General Pradt) for the defendants.
   WelüON, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The ship Amazon, Israel Trask, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about the 17th of June, 1800, from Nantasket Roads, the outer harbor of Boston, bound for Cadiz or Malaga. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on or about the 6th day of July, 1800, by the French privateer La Mouche and carried into the port of Corunna, in Spain, and vessel and cargo libeled before the council of prizes at Paris, where, on the 30th day of August, 1801, it was decreed that vessel and cargo be restored to Capt. Israel Trask in the condition in which they are, and in case of a sale the proceeds to be given up, with a deduction of all expenses lawfully incurred.

In pursuance of above decree the Amazon was restored to Cáptain Trask September 21, 1801, after a detention of fourteen months and eighteen days.

This case presents the same question presented in the case of the Rose, Chase, master, decided at the present term of the court, to wit: The right of the claimants to recover when it is shown that the captured vessel resisted the exercise of search on the part of the French privateer capturing the vessel.

In that case it was held, as a conclusion of law, that there was no liability upon the part of the French Government, and hence none on the part of the American Government under the obligation imposed upon it by the convention of September 30,1800. While in the case of the Rose there was a more determined resistance, greater loss of life, and injury to the persons engaged than in this case, that difference does not change the law as applicable to this proceeding.

In this case, as shown by the statements of the protest and decree, the Amazon did not stop and exhibit her papers to the' privateer; there was a very substantial and determined resistance to the exercise of the right of search, and it was only by the superior force of the capturing ship that the result of capture was accomplished.

For the reasons above stated the court decides, as a conclusion of law, that the seizure and condemnation were lawful; that the owners and insurers had no valid claim of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that the claims were not relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are not entitled to recover from the United States.

The facts in detail will be reported, with a copy of this opinion, to Congress, in accordance with the statute.