Russel & Davis' Republican gazetteer — Concord, N.H., 1797-02-28 00:00:00, page 1

» DOCUMENTS
Which accompanied th Meffa, of Th
Prejifot of thi United States,
• to both Houses of Con-
LETTER to Mr. Pinckney, Min
ijhr PieQatentiar, of the United
Staet to the French Republic.
Department of State,l
Jin. 16,'97. j
'[Continued.]
s*l/I'' A'" having briefly no
noticed fevers! cases by name,
seems to reserve those of the Venge
ance and Cassius for a full display ofl
unwarrantable condud in the Gov-|
ernment and Courts of the United;
States, and therefore descants on
them at some length; but with so
many aberrations from the faas, with
so many erroneous ideas concerning
our jurisprudence, and so many inju
rious insinuations receding our
Courts and their officers ;, it will be
necessary that you fliould learn the
true hiftury of these cases from au
thentic documents.
, CaSE
of the French privateer La Vengeance.
For the full hiftory of this privateer
Ind her prize, I must refer you to the
documents in the case. The principal
fads are these. About the latter qid
of June or beginning of July, 1795,
the privateer La Vengeance arrived
at Newyork,with a valuable Spanilh
prize called the Princeffa de las Auf
trias, Don Diego Pintado the owner
commenced a suit for bis vessel, on
the ground that (he had,been taken
by an illegal privateer. The suit was
inftitued by Mr Troup, not wanton
ly, but upon information which was
afterwards verified by the oaths of
several witnesses. I^ the progress of
the cause these witnesses were contra
difled by the wittites produced on
behalf of the tutors for whom a de
cree teas finally given ; the clashing
evidence preponderating,in thejudge
his opinion, in favor of the captors :
but he expressly declared that there
was probable cause for the seizure,
^After this fait for the prize had
been commenced, the Spanish Con
sul complained to Mr. Harrison, the
Diftria Attorney, in his official capa
city, of a violation of law, on the part
of the privateer la Vengeance, in con-
ISequence of which a Spanish lubje&
had been injured. Mr, Harrison up
on inquiry found at least a probabil
] ity that the complaint refpe&ing the
privateer was true. This probability
arose from what he considered as af
fording thecertainty of material proof
—and, therefore, in conformity with
his official duty, commenced a profe
eution on the ad of Congress forbid
ing the arming of privateers in our
ports. The dgeifion of this and of
the prize cause depended on the fame
evidence. The decifioh being in fa
vor of the captors, Mr. Harrison ac-<
quiefeed in it as it refpeded the pri
vateer : and he united with his affo
date council io the prize cause in ad
vising the like fuhmiffion in thatcafe.
But the Sp^mfh consul deemed it his
duty to pursue the claim to the Court
in the last resort. This can warrant
no complaint ; for Mr. Harrison re
marks that perhaps there never were
chafes in which more contradictory
and irreconcileable evidence was of
fered, and in which the minds of the
auditors were more divided as to the
real Rate of fa&
=—^=^±=3^=—=—^^
' RUSSEL & DAVIS's
REPUBLICAN GAZETTEER.
NO. 15]
. ^ -—-.rj -.- . v^ rr v^ v*^ ... ~ .X" < A -'"t tng^T ^-^-. ^te**'»» -—~ ■- ■ 'uuraHinii a i &____&__—=—„-— —^^
CONCO R D, [newh.] T UESDAY, February 28, 1797.
— — —— —-—
rian^ fl wramraii@ttfe&tn#fatma&&tttffis^ ^
I The second public suit against the
privateer was for exporting arms and
ammunition from the United States,
when such exportation was prohibit
ed by law. The evidence which ap
peared in the other cauies, gave rife
Ito this prefecution; and upon the
[trial the Judge condemned the priva
foeer. An appeal from this sentence
ft was interposed by the French consul.
^The appeal was heard in the circuit
wtourt ; and upon new evidence the
|fentence of the Diftri& Court was re- 1
!verfed.
Mr. Adet complains, that while
lone suit was pending for the prize, |
fond another against the privateer, the
Diftria Attorney fliould exhibit a fe
jepnd information against the priva
4teer, on which she was arrested anew,
I for having exported arms in violation
lota law of the United States, which
I was in force when the Vengeance fail
led from Newyork: and that this in
formation was filed on the simple de
fclarition ofjMr. Giles, the Marshal
of the Court, who as informer was to
• share part of the confiscation. As Mr
Harrison remarks, it was in favor of
the privateer, that this second infor
mation was filed while the firft was
pending ; because it lived time. Had
he postponed the latter until the firft
had been decided there might have
been some foundation for a charge of
unnecessary delay. Mr, Harrison's
state of the case shews that this second
information was not made on the de
claration of the Marshal ; but on the |
evidence that appeared on the exam
ination of the firft.
Mr. Adet having been ptafed tor
censure the condud of the Attorney, ]
Clerk and Marshal of the Diftritt
Court of Newyork,in justice to them,
I have added to the other documents
in this case, the letters of Mr. Harri
son and Mr. Troup. They will answ
er the double purpose of juftifying
them, and of vindicating our gov
ernment and tribunals.
Mr. Adet particularly notices the
; papers he had received from St. Do
mingo, " Proving (as he fays) in the
:molt convincing manner, that the|
Vengeur (la Vengeance) had arrivedl
at Port de Paix without any arma
Iment or equipment whatever, and
Ithat the had been fold, armed and e
quipped wholly, and commiflioned as I
a privateer, on, the territory of the
(Republic. These documents were
certificates of the general, the ordon
nature, and of the greater part of the
principal officers of St. Domingo,"
&c. —" He hastened to communicate I
to the Secretary of State, and to re-1
quest him to order the Attorney ofl
Newyork diftria to hay the proceed- |
l ings instituted in the name of the
government ; there was nothing done
with them, and Mr. Harrison con
tinued his prefecution." It will ap
pear by my letter of Odober ift, '95,
to Mr. Harrison, that these papers
were lent to him, and by his answer
.ofO&. 3d, that he received them. —
That the bill of sale (one of the pa
pers) was produced to the Court in
behalf of the claimant of the priva
teer, but that the certificate of Gen.
Lavaux could not be considered as
evidence in the cause, and if it had
been admissible, " the claimant
would be very cautious of producing
it, on account of its differing from
the witnesses."-
6th. Case of the privateer Le Cas
sius
For the full hiftory of this case, I
must also refer you to the documents
t — and here only present you with a |
concise statement.
The Cassius, under the name of les
Jumeaux, was fitted and armed fora|
vessel of war in the port of Philadel
phia, in violation of a law of the U.
S. In December, 1794, having escap
ed from the port to defeend the river,
'orders were given to the militia of the
state of Delaware to intercept her.—
The attempt was made and failed ;
the crew of les Jumeaux, which was
lunexpededlylunexpededly found to be very nume
-1 rous, refilled the officers who wen; on|
I board, manned their cannon, and!
I brought them to bear on the cutter,j
in which the militia (about 40 in
number) were embarked. Their forcel
being inadequate to the enterprize, i
they retired, with an intention to;
return the next day with a reinforce
ment. They did so : but les Jumeauxl
had failed and gone to sea. The a
gent Mr. Guenet, by whom les Ju-|
meaux had been fitted out, was tried 1
in the circuit court at Philadelphia, j
convicted of the offence, and receiv-,
ed sentence of fine and imprifonment.l
Les Jumeaux proceeded to St. Do
mingo. Samuel B. Davis, a citizen
of the United States, there took the
command of her, with a commiflion
from the French Government. Da
ivis probably failed from Philadelphia
iin les Jumeaux for the purpose of fi
nally taking the command of her. —
Her name was now changed to Le
Cassius ; and on a cruise the took a
I fchooner called the William Linnfey,
§ belonging to Messrs. Yard and Ket-
Iland of Philadelphia ; Mr. Ketland
titering purebred an interest in her,
I after her failing. The fchdoner and
her cargo were condemned as prize
at St. Domingo. In August, 1795,
Capt. Davis, commanding leCaffiut,
came with her to Philadelphia. She
was immediately known. Mr. Yard,
with a view cf obtaining an indemni
fication for the loss cf the schooner
and her cargo, libelled le Cassius in
the Diftrift Court, and caused the
£captain to be arrested. Soon after,
I the Supreme Court being in[
[feffion, Capt. Davi/i counsel
fapplied for and obtained a pro
hibition to the D^ftria Court,
[to flop its proceedings; by
Iwhich the suits both against him
and le C^ffias were defeated,—
The prohibition was granted on
this principle ; that the trial of
prizes, taken without the jurif
tdiaion of the United State#,
landI and carried to placet within the
jurifdiaioo of France; for adjo-I
Idication, by French vessels, andl
all queftioni incidental to it, be-I
long exclusively to the Frenchl
tribunal ; and consequently
that id veffelt of war and their
officers are not liable to the
process of our Courts, predi.
cited upon such capture and 1
fubftquent proceedings within
the jufifdiaion of the French
government.
Messrs. Yard and Ketland
having failed to obtain an in
demnification in this mode, pro-|
cured new proofs, on the infer I
motion of Mr. Ketland, to be
issued from the circuit court by;
! which le Cassius was attachedl
at a vessel armed and epuipped
as a ship of war in the port of [
Philadelphia, with intent to
cruise and commit hostilities
against nations with whom the
lUnited States were at peace, in
violation of the aft of Congress
prohibiting such armaments.—
Mr. Adet complained that the
process was taken out of the
'circuit court, because, as he afo
hedged, it had no jurifdiaion,
land that it would be attended
[with delay, that court fitting
!but twice a year ; whereas the
Didrid Court, in which it was
laid the prosecution (if at all
ipermitted) should have been
Icommenced, was always open,
jl confuted gentlemen of legal
[ knowledge on the point of ju
rifdiaion in this cause, and the,
were decided in their opinion
that the Circuit Court had ju
risdiaion, and exclusively of
the Diftrid Court. You will
fee also in Mr. Rawle's state.
ment of this case, that this o
pinion was adopted and fop.
ported by two gentlemen of
eminence at the bir. You will
further fee in th^t statement,
that the Government of the U.
S. had no part in originating
this prosecution ; and that the
diftria attorney, in b half of
the United States, took mea
fores st each term of the Cir
cuit Court to prepare the cause
for trial, and on a plea calcu
lated to defeat the ptofecution.
I At length, in Oa. term, 1796,
the cause was bro't to a hearing
—ln the course of the argu
iment the question of jurifdie-
Ition presented itfelf. The court
adjourned till the next day to
;confider of it, and on the fol
lowing morning dismissed the
suit. As soon as I had received
notice of this event, (on the 19
of Off. last) I wrote to Mr. A
det informing him that le Caf-
Ifius remained in the custody of
the Matfhal, but ready to be
delivered to his order. To thia
>no answer was returned : but
he mentions the matter in the
notes Subjoined to his note of
the 15th Nov. intimating that
the United States were anfwer
lable in this case for a violation
of treaties, and for the damages
the Cassius has sustained. Here
the affair rests.
In his letter of the 3d June,
1796, which you will find a-
I mong the papers tefpeaing the
^Caffius, Mr. Adet mentioned
[the affair of the Favorite 0
Newyork ; and intimated an
[VOL. I.