Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-11-09

she was engaged in ills inliuman ta,nic an-
peared too PLAIN to admit of dispute; but her
papers and other circumstances led to- the
conclusion though she was originally an Ameri-
can vessel, yet she is row French, and belongs to
certain persons in Guadaloupe. claim to
the property was preferred by the French
Consul in Boston.
1t is evident the questions arising in this
case are both important and highly interesting.
The argument for the government was main
tanned with great ability and elouuence by
George Blake, Esq. District Attorney, and
Mr. Webster. The claimants counsel was
VIM. Sullivan, Esq. After long hearing of
two days, the Hon. Judge Story observed
that he should require time TO consider ques-
ton, involving in its consequences no less than
the establishment ola new doctrine i'm the Law
of Nations
Since thenwe have understood that the clai-
mant's counsel has requested a re-hearing, in
consequence OF the ground assumed and main
tanned By Mr.. Webster, that the Slave Trade
was now to be considered illegal and unjust,
under the L0io Of Nations, and consequently
lhat the Dung Eugene ought to be condemn
ell. This doctrine arose, he cnntended, not
only from the original injustice and nhum;,ni-
ty ofthe traffic in the abstract, but from the
repeated declarations to that effect made by
all the European and American powers, pro-
Tossing to be governed by the code of inter
national law
re-hcaring has been granted, and the
time assigned for that purpose is Friday, De-
cember Ith. Ev. Ga-.
Ctrcoat Conn.-Case ofthe La Jeune Eugenie,
LII. Cont Stockton, Libeiiani
! BosToN, October 29.-This was the case of
one of the vessels taken in Nav last, on the
Coast OF Africa, by the United States schoon-
er alligator, Lieut. CONT Stockton. The
Libel against her proceeded on two grounds
first that she was an American vessel, engaged
in the .Siaue Trade, against the laws of Con-
gress, and particularly the act of April sO13I8:
second, that she wasavesscl engaged in the Slave
trade without setting out to whom she be
ionged-A claim for the vessel and cargo was
lnterposed ON the part of Messrs. Raibdu and
Laodfoi, French subjects, and inhabitants OF
Basseterre, Gaudaloupe.-Afterr reading the
evidence, the counsel for the libe,lants contend
ed, LIST, that twas sufficiently apparent that the
vessel was a vessel of the United States
1t being admitted that she was American
punt, and originally American owned and
! there not being, rs was contended, any
satisfactory proof OF any bone fde transfer i,
was also commended, OF the circumstances that
there was reason to believe that she left the
United States, subsequent to the passing of the
act OF Congress of April 1878; there being no
pretence OF her having assumed French
character Till Feb. 1919. Second, That al
the time OF her seizure on the Coast of Africa
she was unquestionably employed IN the Stare
iTdde. Third, that admitting her to be, az as
serted by the Claimants, the property ofFrenci
subjects, and nayigated under the fag and pass
OF that nation, at the time of seizure, still be-
ing concerned lin Il traffic prohibited by the
laws OF France, and the laws of the United
States alss, the claim could not he sustained
In the Courts OF this country. Fourth, that
the African slave trade may now be consider
ed as repugnant to the jas gentiuna, and inca
pablo of a legal existence the laws, treaties,
and public declarations ufthe several nations
OF Conscientious, interdicted and denouncing
ths trade, beng received as evidence of their
assent to the doctrine offs illegality.
III was further commended that no question
about the right Of search, strictly speaking,
arose in this case. II was admitted, by the
Libciants, that that was "a bclligcrent right,
and not to be exercised in time of peace ; but
IL was insisted that the doctrine relative to
that right had no application in the presen:
case. The vessel, ii was said, was taken, and
sent III ii she was legally subject to condem-
nation, M the Courts of this country, she was
legally seized and must be condemned if no,
the persons seizing her did not expect to sci
up any right Of search in their iusiifcation
On Inc other hand ii was contended in be-
halt of the claimant. l.. That there was no
sufficient evidence that the vessel was Amer
lean property and that this point was one tu
he made out by the LihelIants second, that
there was full evidence that the vessel was
the property of the claimants, French sub
lects third, that she ought consequently tn
be restored I; and fourth, that damages also
ought 10 be awarded against the captors. Ii
was insisted that the ground taken by the Ii
bellants necessarily implied and drew after it
a right OF search in time of peace, which did
not exist, by the law of nations. That if
there were, in this case, no right of search.
there could be no right to seize and send in for
adjudication. 1t was oberved and urged, that
both the u. :. and France had wholly rerus-
ed to agree with Great Britain for mutual
right of search which was evidence ofthe o.
pinions entertained by those Governments of
the mischiefs which would result from such
exercise.
10 this it was replied, that it was a non Sc
qu'fur to say, that where there was no right
of search, there could be no lawful seizure or
condemnation THAT the right of search affords
a protection only in eases where there turns
out to be no cause Of condemnation and
reed not be resorted to for justification OF
the seizure where there is found cause OF
condemnation. 1t was further said, that at
present the only question was, whether the
claimants, as private individuals could be adj
mitted TO claim, as for private property
that the French Government had laid no
claim before the court, at present, which
would probably be done, if it should be suppos-
Io..l fl,..N. 4.
affecting the sovereignty and equality OF ma
lions was involved in tie case.