Source: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Friendschaft
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 19:16:21+00:00

Document:
APPEAL from the circuit court for the district of North Carolina.
The brig Friendschaft was captured on a voyage from London to Lisbon, by the privateer Herald, and brought into Cape fear, in North Carolina, where the vessel and cargo were libelled, in July, 1814, as prize of war. The commercial agent of his royal highness the Prince Regent of Portugal, interposed a claim to several packages, parts of the said cargo, on behalf of the respective owners, whom he averred to be Portuguese subjects and merchants residing in Portugal. The cargo consisted of many different shipments. Most of them were accompanied with bills of lading, directing a delivery to shipper or order. Of these a few were specially indorsed. Generally, however, they were without endorsements, or with blank endorsements only. A few shipments were accompanied with bills of lading, deliverable to persons in Lisbon, especially named in the bills. Very few were accompanied with letters or invoices. These, it was alleged in the claim, had probably been sent by the regular packet.
In August 1814, the district court pronounced its sentence, condemning as prize of war, 'all that part of the cargo for which no claim had been put in,' and 'all that part of the cargo which was shipped, as evidence by bills of lading, either without endorsement or with blank endorsements, and not accompanied by letter or invoice, viz.
and that part appearing by the bill of lading to consist of forty bales of goods shipped by Moreira, Vieira, and Machado. Farther proof was ordered with respect to the residue of the cargo and the vessel.
From this sentence the claimants appealed to the circuit court. That court, in May 1815, dismissed so much of the appeal as respected the brig, and that part of the cargo in respect to which farther proof was ordered, as having been improvidently allowed before a final sentence, and affirmed the residue of the decree, except in regard to the forty bales shipped by Moreira, Vieira, and Machado, with respect to which farther proof was directed, to establish the right of Francis Jose Moreira to restitution of one third part thereof.
In April, 1816, farther proof was exhibited to the district court, in support of the claim for the parts of the cargo comprehended in the bills of lading numbered 108, 109, 141, 122, and 118, which bills being deliverable to merchants residing in Lisbon, whose names were expressed therein, were not endorsed. The farther proof was deemed sufficient and restitution was ordered. The vessel and the residue of the cargo were condemned as prize of war.
From this decree the captors appealed to this court. On the interposition of this appeal, the circuit court ordered that Joseph Winn, a British born subject, resident in Portugal, in whose behalf a claim was filed to No. 118, should be permitted to offer farther proof to the supreme court, to be admitted or rejected by that court.
Mr. Gaston, for the respondents and claimants. 1. On the first point the claimants have to encounter a difficulty purely technical, which cannot pretend to a foundation in justice, and which, indeed, aims to prevent a decision upon the merits of the controversy. If this difficulty can neither be surmounted nor escaped without a violation of the established principles and rules of jurisprudence, the claimants must submit without repining. But it will be impossible for the friends to the repose of nations, and to the impartial administration of justice in the courts of belligerents, not to regret, that the highest tribunal in our land should find itself so fettered with forms, as to be unable to do what shall appear to them to be right; as to be compelled to condemn as prize of war what the inferior tribunals shall have restored, (in their opinion justly,) as neutral property. The captors' objection is founded on a literal exposition of the decree of August, 1814, inconsistent with its obvious meaning. However desirable it may be that precision should be used in drawing up the decrees of judicial tribunals, yet the infirmity of human nature, and the imperfection of human language, alike demand that these decisions should not be perverted by verbal criticism from their substantial import. No one can doubt the meaning of the sentence of August, 1814. No one can hesitate to say, that it designed not to condemn such parts of the cargo as were evidenced by bills of lading addressed to consignees, specially named in them. This design appears as distinctly as though it had been expressed in the most formal terms. The court exempts from condemnation, and reserves for farther proof, all the cases of bills of lading deliverable to shipper or order, which are specially endorsed to consignees. A fortiori, it could not but exempt from condemnation those where the bills of lading are addressed to consignees specially named in the bills of lading. It is the order of the English shipper for the delivery of the goods to the Portuguese consignee, that raises the doubt where resides the proprietary interest; whether in the shipper or in the consignee. And unquestionably the probability that such interest in the consignee is, at least, as strong where the consignment is original, and on the face of the bill of lading, as where it is made by an endorsement of the bill. The sentence of August, 1814, which is insisted on as condemning the property in question, could not have that effect until it was completed. A blank was purposely left for the insertion of the parts of the cargo intended to be condemned. Until this blank was filled up, or something done by the court equally definitive and precise, the sentence was necessarily imperfect, both in substance and in form. This imperfection continued as to the district court until August term, 1816, and then the property in question was not only not condemned, but ordered to be restored. The affirmance of the sentence of August, 1814, by the circuit court was in general terms. It cannot, therefore, have any other effect than if the sentence affirmed had been repeated in todidem verbis. The sentence of condemnation, therefore, of the circuit court of May, 1815, was incomplete; and remained so until November term, 1816, when in direct terms it was declared that it should not apply to the present claims. Whatever informalities or errors of proceeding may have been had below, yet as the property to which the claims apply is still in the custody of the law, and the whole case in relation to it is now before this court, all these errors and irregularities will be so corrected, as to make the final decision of the controversy, and disposition of the property, conform to the rights of the parties litigant. Whether the district court, in August, 1814, did or did not condemn this part of the cargo; whether it did or did not decree that farther proof should be heard in relation to it; yet if it ought not to have been condemned-if farther proof ought to have been received in relation to it-this court will receive such farther proof. 2. But, it is contended, that whatever might have been the meaning of the sentence of the district court of August, 1814, affirmed in the circuit court in May, 1815, it ought to have condemned the goods in question, and not to have let in the claimants to farther proof. And this position is founded on an assertion that the bills of lading, No. 108, 109, 141, 122, and 118, furnish no evidence whatever of proprietary interest in the consignees, and on the apprehension that the admission of farther proof in cases so circumstanced might destroy all security for belligerent rights. And, does a bill of lading furnish no evidence, not even presumptive, of proprietary interest in the consignee? It is understood, and such was the language of this court in the case of the St. Joze Indiano,  that in general the rules of the prize court, as to the vesting of property, are the same with those of the common law. Now, 'every authority which can be adduced, from the earliest period of time down to the present hour, agree, that at law, the property does pass as absolutely and as effectually, (by a bill of lading,) as if the goods had been actually delivered into the hands of the consignee.'  'If upon a bill of lading,' (says Lord Hardwicke, in Snee v. Prescott, ) between merchants residing in different countries, the goods be shipped and consigned to the principal expressly in the body of the bill of lading, that vests the property in the consignee.' The right of the consignor to stop goods in transitu is not founded on any presumed property in the consignor, but necessarily supposes the property to be in the consignee; for, 'it is a contradiction in terms, to say a man has a right to stop his own goods in transitu.' It is a right founded wholly on equitable principles, 'which owes its origin to courts of equity-and, the question is not whether the property has vested under the bill of lading, for that is clear; but whether on the insolvency of the consignee, who has not paid for the goods, the consignor can countermand the consignment, or, in other words, devest the property which was vested in the consignee.'  Unless, therefore, a totally different rule, as to the vesting of property, is to be asserted in a court of prize from that which is established at law, a bill of lading absolutely vests the property in the consignee, and, of course, is the appropriate and definite evidence of his proprietary interest. But, it is said, these bills of lading do not express the shipment to be for the account and risk of the consignees, and state that the freight has been paid in London, and, 'of course, by the consignors.' Surely it is not seriously contended, that the omission to declare the shipment to be on account of the consignees, and the declaration that the freight has been paid in London, and, 'of course, by the consignors,' could have been designed to secure to the consignors the right of stopping in transitu? This right is founded on principles of equity which give it a direct application to shipments made on account of the consignees, and which have no connection whatever with the legal consequences of the payment of freight. Let us see, however, what inferences may be fairly drawn from the peculiarities which are noticed in the bills of lading.-They omit to state that the shipment is on account and risk of the consignees. Shall we thence infer that the shipment is on account and risk of the consignors? This is not the inference of the law. If the bill of lading vests the property in the consignee, he, of course, sustains the peril of the shipment, unless there be an agreement to the contrary. It would be a singular absurdity, indeed, if the law, upon the instrument, presumed that the consignee was the owner, and at the same time Jerred that he did not bear the ordinary risks of ownership. Where the shipment is on account and at the risk of the consignor, and not of the consignee, there it may be proper to express the fact, because it is opposed to the legal presumption-But that an omission to state, what without statement is presumed, can be converted into an argument against the presumption-will be an instance of intellectual dexterity, rather fitted to surprise than to satisfy the inquirer after truth. A bill of lading evidences an agreement made by the master with the shipper for the delivery of the goods to the consignee. His undertaking is simply to carry the goods for the stipulated price to the consignee. He knows not that the consignee is to sustain the risk of the shipment-He cannot, therefore, with propriety, aver it in his contract. If, indeed, the consignor is to sustain the risk, and wishes this fact to be stated in the master's undertaking, then has he the full evidence which warrants the insertion of such a clause in the bill of lading. And, accordingly, such is the mercantile usage. Bills of lading ordinarily express account and risk when they are not the account and risk of the consignee. But it is otherwise with invoices-These are documents passing between the parties to the shipment, and contain the declaration of the consignor to the consignee. These, therefore, declare, however it may be, at whose account and hazard the shipment is made. The other peculiarity noticed in the bills of lading is, that the freight is paid in London, and, 'of course, by the consignors.' If this corollary, thus summarily deduced, of a payment by the shippers, mean no more than a payment by the consignees through the shippers as their immediate agents at London, it may be admitted as probable, and, at all events, as harmless. But if it mean a payment by the shippers as principals, or on their own account, then it is denied to follow from the proposition which it claims as its premises. But the peculiarities, thus examined, are relied on as constituting a support on which to rest the doctrine contained in the cases of Davis, et al. v. James,  and Moore v. Wilson,  which are cited, (as it would seem,) to prove, that where the consignor pays the freight, the bill of lading does not vest the property in the consignee; It is not material to inquire how far these cases would now stand the test of a strict scrutiny. It is but doing justice, however, to the great men who decided them, to say, that they establish no such doctrine. Lord Mansfield expressly declares, that he does not proceed at all on the ground of proprietorship, but simply on the agreement of the carrier. And Lord Kenyon, in Dawes v. Peck,  states, that the doctrine which they furnish is no more, than, that the consignor may bring an action for breach of contract against the carrier on his agreement, where the consignor is to be at the expense of the carriage, 'where he stands in the character of an insurer to the consignee for the safe arrival of the goods.' It is alleged, that if the interest in these claims were bona fide neutral, it is incredible, that the invoices and letters would not have accompanied the shipment. Is it not equally probable, where the shipment is not on neutral account, or partly on neutral and partly on hostile account, and there is no attempt at deception, that it would have been accompanied with letters and invoices? Yet in the vast multitude of the shipments clearly on enemy account, made by this ship, and which have been condemned without a controversy, there is not one in ten thus accompanied. The packet sails between London and Lisbon with a regularity, certainty, and frequency, little short of what takes place in transmissions by mail. It is the great and established medium of conveyance, established by treaty stipulations, for passengers and letters. Is it strange, therefore, that all the communications between the shipper and the owner of the goods, except a copy of the bill of lading, (which at once evidences the property, and is directory to the master,) should have been sent by this certain and regular and official medium of conveyance? If duplicates of these communications had accompanied the shipments in question, this unusual caution might have been construed into a proof of guilt, and these additional evidences of neutral proprietorship stigmatized as the badges of fraud. But it is alleged, also, that the bills of lading are not verified. The only individual of the crew examined by the commissioners, is the master, and he supports the bill of lading as far as can be expected of a carrier-master. In answer to the 13th interrogatory, he declares that the bills of lading are not false or colourable; and in answer to the 20th, that he presumes the goods shipped belong to the respective consignees. The right of belligerents are not the only rights deserving of the notice, and entitled to the protection of the courts of prize. Though human testimony may sometimes be corrupt, and often fallacious, it is by human testimony alone, that human tribunals can hope to eviscerate the truth. Condemnation should take place only when the fact of enemy's property has been ascertained; and where that fact is doubted, proof should be resorted to. These principles have received the countenance of all those engaged in the administration of public law, whom the civilized world (cruisers excepted) regard with reverence. They will be found stated with simplicity and perspicuity in the famous British answer to the Prussian memorial, and communicated to the American government in 1794, as the basis of the proceedings in British courts of Admiralty; and which has been adopted by this court as the substratum of its own conduct in cases of prize.-3. When it is recollected that the claimants have sought to furnish proof, both from the port of shipment and the port of destination, from London and from Lisbon; that during the war, the means of procuring such proof from Europe and bringing it to the United States were unfrequent and uncertain; and that delay will not be occasioned by listening to the additional proof now tendered, it is believed that the court will not refuse to hear it. The case of the Bernon,  shows that the court, after receiving farther proof, may order additional proof, if requisite, to enlighten its judgment; and the case of the Frances  is an authority in point, that the appellate court may order additional proof, if the farther proof on which the cause has been heard below is defective. May not the appellate court then hear it, if to prevent injurious delays it be prepared in anticipation?-4. The only inquiries of fact, as to the character of the claimant, according to the rules laid down by Sir William Scott, in the Herstelder,  are, was he at the time of seizure entitled to restitution; and is he, at the time of adjudication, in a capacity to claim. The present capacity of the claimant is without doubt. His right to restitution must be tested by his national character at the time of seizure, on the 10th of May, 1814. But the objection is founded entirely on a misconception of the meaning of the affidavits. Whether the facts testified be true or not, must depend on the veracity of the deponents. If they are to be believed, they prove a residence of the claimant as an established merchant at Lisbon, for several years preceding the seizure, and up to the 12th of June thereafter; the leaving of Lisbon on mercantile business, animo revertendi, on the 12th of June, 1814, and the continuance of his domicil, residence, and establishment there, and a continued purpose of actually returning thither, up to the date of the affidavits.-5. It must be conceded, that for commercial purposes, among the civilized nations of Europe and the West, the national character of an individual is ordinarily that of the country in which he resides. No position is better established than this, that if a person goes to another country, and there engages in trade and takes up his residence, he is by the law of nations, to be considered as a merchant of that country. This general rule applies to the case of British merchants domiciled in Portugal. They owe allegiance to the government, are protected by its laws, mingle intimately with the natives in all the social and domestic relations, cherish Portuguese industry, increase Portuguese capital, and contribute to the revenue of Portugal. It is true that a very intimate commercial connexion has long subsisted between Portugal and Britain, and that the subjects of the latter are encouraged to settle in the Portuguese dominions, by many advantageous regulations infavour of their traffic. But it is by no means true that any British authority is exercised in Portugal, or that Portugal can be viewed as the dependent province of Britain. First. There is no authority for the assertion that the ports of Portugal are open in war for the adjudication of British captures made from nations at peace with Portugal. An irregular practice for merly obtained to that effect, to which Sir Wm. Scott alludes in the Henrick and Maria; but it was sanctioned neither by treaty nor decree. The treaty of 1810 is utterly silent on that head, and it is a matter of notoriety, that on the breaking out of the late war between the United States and Great Britain, a royal decree was issued, forbidding cruisers of belligerents from bringing their prizes into the dominions of Portugal, which was enforced throughout the war. Second. Portugal is not bound by treaty to deliver up British vessels brought into her ports which have been taken by the enemy of Britain. The 30th article of the present treaty limits the obligation to the restitution of property plundered by pirates. And this obligation is reciprocal. Third. British residents are not exempt from the jurisdiction of the Portuguese tribunals. They have the privilege indeed of choosing from among the commissioned judges of the realm one who is to be presented to the king for his approbation as their judge conservator, and who, if approved, is so appointed. The authority of this judge, (who is usually selected because of his knowledge of the English language,) reaches only to the trial in the first instance of commercial disputes brought before him by British merchants, and is ever subordinate to the higher tribunals of justice established in the realm, who, in all cases, possess over him an appellate jurisdiction. The privilege is not peculiar to the British, but is extended to every friendly European nation. Fourth. The provision of the treaty of 1654, relative to the appointment of administrators to British residents dying intestate, is not renewed in the treaty of 1810. There is in lieu of it a reciprocal stipulation, (Art. 7th.) for the disposal, by the subjects of both nations, of their personal property by testament. Fifth. The provision for applying the effects seized by the Inquisition to the payment of debts due the British creditor, is but a dictate of justice, and probably places these creditors on the same footing with native creditors. It is not found in the treaty of 1810. Sixth. There is nothing extraordinary in the mutual stipulation for the tolerance, by each, of the religion of the subjects of the other, as far as it may consist with the laws of their respective realms. Seventh. Nor is it unusual to grant to the subjects of other nations, an exemption from monopolies obligatory on native merchants. It is perfectly familiar to the court, that under the British treaty of 1795, such an exemption was accorded to American merchants from the monopoly of the British East India Company. And in the treaty of 1810 it will be seen that the stipulations are reciprocal. There is much difficulty in ascertaining the precise nature of the immunities enjoyed by British merchants in Portugal, at the date of the treaty of 1810, because the practice had been to grant them occasionally by alvaras. These are temporary proclamations, which have effect, only, for a year and a day. It is very certain that some privileges heretofore granted, were not then possessed. For instance, the alvara of 1717 exempts Englishmen from certain taxes to which the natives are liable, while the 7th article of the treaty of 1810, provides that they shall be liable to the same taxes, (and no other) as are imposed on the natives of Portugal. The probability is, that the most important of these immunities are especially enumerated in the treaty. It is unnecessary, however, to proceed further with this examination. Enough appears to show that the attempt to take the case of British merchants resident in Portugal, out of the general rule applied to domicil among civilized nations, whatever admiration may be due to its boldness, cannot receive the sanction of an enlightened court. The analogy between such merchants and Europeans in Turkey, who, there, neither sustain their original character, nor take the character of the people within whose territories they sojourn, but owe their name and political existence to the factory and association under whose protection they carry on a precarious traffick-who are viewed as a people exempt from Turkish dominion,  and who never mix with the natives in any social or domestic concern-is too forced and unnatural to afford a basis for any arguments applicable to them both. No authority is cited in support of this objection, other than a remark of Sir William Scott in the Henrick and Maria, which must be understood secundum subjectam materiam. He is there speaking of the validity of a condemnation in England of an enemy's ship, carried into Lisbon or Leghorn-into the port of a very close and intimate ally. But in opposition to it there are great authorities. The case of the Armenian merchants resident at Madras under special privileges, who were nevertheless, subjected to the general rule of domicil, bears directly upon it.  The case of the Nayade, which applies the commercial rule of domicil to Prussian merchants in Portugal, also bears upon it.  The case of the Danaos,  decided in March, 1802, at a time when the objection was stronger than at present, is directly in point, and of the highest prize tribunal in England. In the St. Joze Indiano  it was expressly decided by one of the learned judges of this court, that British residents in the dominions of Portugal take the character of their domicil, and as to all third parties, are to be deemed Portuguese subjects. This decision was acquiesced in by the counsel for the captors. In the case of the Antonio Johanna, such was considered the settled rule; and, accordingly, restitution was made by this court to Mr. Ivers, a resident British merchant, at St. Michael's, one of the firm of Burnet & Ivers, of the moiety claimed in his behalf as a Portuguese subject.  The counsel who now advances this objection, declined then to bring it forward.
^1 Davisetal v. James, 5 Burr. 2680. Moore v. Wilson, 1 T. R. 659.
^2 The Dos Hermanos, 2 Wheat. 76. 93.
^3 La Virginie, 5 Rob. 98.
^5 The Herstelder, 1 Rob. 97.
^6 The Indian Chief, 3 Rob. 25.
^10 2 Posthelwaite's Dict. of Trade and Commerce, art. Treaties.
^11 The Henrick and Maria, 4 Rob. 50.
^12 2 Chalmer's Coll. Treat. 279.
^14 2 Chalmers, 271. Ib. 281.
^17 Treaty of 1810, art. 3.
^18 Valin, Sur l'Ordon. 234. 235. 2 Chambers, 436.
^19 Cited in the Indian Chief, 3 Rob. 32. Ib. App. Note No. I. 295.
^21 Per Buller, J. in Dom. Proc. Lickbarrow v. Mason, 6 East. 23. Note.
^23 6 East, 28. Note.
^25 1 T. R. 659.
^26 8 T. R. 330.
^28 8 Cranch, 308, 353.
^30 See Consuller Certificate in the Herman, 3 Rob. Appen. I. 295.
^31 The Angelique, 3 Rob., Appen. B. 294.
^34 2 Gallis. 268, 292.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 3
 v.