Case Name: THE SCHOONER CONRAD. ELIZABETH Y. THOMPSON, Administratrix, v. THE UNITED STATES; DAVID STEWART, Administrator, v. THE SAME; DAVID STEWART, Administrator, v. THE SAME; DAVID STEWART AND JOHN E. SEMMES, Receivers, v. THE SAME; DAVID STEWART AND JOHN E. SEMMES, Receivers, v. THE SAME; GEORGE W. RIDGELY, Administrator, v. THE SAME; DAVID STEWART, Administrator, v. THE SAME; ROBERT SHRIVER, Administrator, v. THE SAME; LOUISA T. CARROLL, Administratrix, v. THE SAME; CUMBERLAND DUGAN, Administrator, v. THE SAME; NATHANIEL MORTON, Administrator, v. THE SAME; ELIZABETH MONTELL, Administratrix, v. THE SAME; J. SAVAGE WILLIAMS, Administrator, v. THE SAME; ANTHONY GROVERMAN, Administrator, v. THE SAME; W. HALL HARRIS, Administrator, v. THE SAME; ANTHONY GROVERMAN, Administrator, v. THE SAME; JOHN W. JENKINS, Administrator, v. THE SAME; WILLIAM H. BRUNE, Executor, v. THE SAME; DAVID STEWART, Administrator, v. THE SAME; CHARLES J. BONAPARTE, Administrator, v. THE SAME; MARY JANE THURSTON AND JAMES THURSTON, Administrators, v. THE SAME; DAVID STEWART, Administrator, v. THE SAME
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1902-05-12
Citations: 37 Ct. Cl. 459
Docket Number: 1002, 1827, 2282, 1535
Parties: THE SCHOONER CONRAD. ELIZABETH Y. THOMPSON, Administratrix, v. THE UNITED STATES. DAVID STEWART, Administrator, v. THE SAME. DAVID STEWART, Administrator, v. THE SAME. DAVID STEWART AND JOHN E. SEMMES, Receivers, v. THE SAME. DAVID STEWART AND JOHN E. SEMMES, Receivers, v. THE SAME. GEORGE W. RIDGELY, Administrator, v. THE SAME. DAVID STEWART, Administrator, v. THE SAME. ROBERT SHRIVER, Administrator, v. THE SAME. LOUISA T. CARROLL, Administratrix, v. THE SAME. CUMBERLAND DUGAN, Administrator, v. THE SAME. NATHANIEL MORTON, Administrator, v. THE SAME. ELIZABETH MONTELL, Administratrix, v. THE SAME. J. SAVAGE WILLIAMS, Administrator, v. THE SAME. ANTHONY GROVERMAN, Administrator, v. THE SAME. W. HALL HARRIS, Administrator, v. THE SAME. ANTHONY GROVERMAN, Administrator, v. THE SAME. JOHN W. JENKINS, Administrator, v. THE SAME. WILLIAM H. BRUNE, Executor, v. THE SAME. DAVID STEWART, Administrator, v. THE SAME. CHARLES J. BONAPARTE, Administrator, v. THE SAME. MARY JANE THURSTON AND JAMES THURSTON, Administrators, v. THE SAME. DAVID STEWART, Administrator, v. THE SAME.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 459–465

Head Matter:
THE SCHOONER CONRAD. ELIZABETH Y. THOMPSON, Administratrix, v. THE UNITED STATES. DAVID STEWART, Administrator, v. THE SAME. DAVID STEWART, Administrator, v. THE SAME. DAVID STEWART AND JOHN E. SEMMES, Receivers, v. THE SAME. DAVID STEWART AND JOHN E. SEMMES, Receivers, v. THE SAME. GEORGE W. RIDGELY, Administrator, v. THE SAME. DAVID STEWART, Administrator, v. THE SAME. ROBERT SHRIVER, Administrator, v. THE SAME. LOUISA T. CARROLL, Administratrix, v. THE SAME. CUMBERLAND DUGAN, Administrator, v. THE SAME. NATHANIEL MORTON, Administrator, v. THE SAME. ELIZABETH MONTELL, Administratrix, v. THE SAME. J. SAVAGE WILLIAMS, Administrator, v. THE SAME. ANTHONY GROVERMAN, Administrator, v. THE SAME. W. HALL HARRIS, Administrator, v. THE SAME. ANTHONY GROVERMAN, Administrator, v. THE SAME. JOHN W. JENKINS, Administrator, v. THE SAME. WILLIAM H. BRUNE, Executor, v. THE SAME. DAVID STEWART, Administrator, v. THE SAME. CHARLES J. BONAPARTE, Administrator, v. THE SAME. MARY JANE THURSTON AND JAMES THURSTON, Administrators, v. THE SAME. DAVID STEWART, Administrator, v. THE SAME.
[French Spoliations,
1002, 1827, 2282, 1535.
Decided May 12, 1902.]
On the Proofs.
The decree of condemnation shows that the supercargo, he being one of the owners of the vessel, was a native of Germany, carrying with him no proof of his naturalization as an American citizen, as in the similar cases of the Nancy and Yandeput (ante). But it appears that while the other vessels did not carry an American register, the Conrad did.
I. The register of an American vessel in the eighteenth century was conclusive evidence in French prize courts of her American character and of the nationality of her owners.
II. A certificate issued under the authority of a government showing the nationality of a vessel, or the citizenship of her owners, can he impeached by foreign powers only by application to the government that issued it.
The Reporter i statement of the case:
The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
I. The schooner Conrad, John Osborn, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about the 18th day of April, 1799, from Baltimore, Md., bound to St. Thomas. While peacefully pursuing- said voyage she was seized on the high seas on or about the 29th day of the said month by the French privateers Clementine, Captain Lavering, and Narbonnois, Captain Furet, and conducted to the islands of Guadeloupe, where said vessel and cargo were condemned and ordered sold for the benefit of the captors by decree of the tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting at Basseterre in said island, and thereby became a total loss to the owners thereof.
The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree were as follows:
First. “That the sea letter of which the captain of the said schooner was the bearer did not conform to the model annexed to the treaty of February 6, 1778.”
Second. “That Conrad Eiselen, supercargo and one of the owners of the said vessel, who, according to his own avowal, is a native of Germany, carried with him no proof of his naturalization as an American citizen.”
It nevertheless appeared by the register on board that Conrad Eiselen was one of the owners of the vessel and a citizen of the United States.
II. The Conrad was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 64f-£ tons burthen, and was built in Virginia in the year 1799, and was owned by Conrad Eiselen, John S. Horne, and Joseph Young, in proportions of one-third each, all of whom were citizens of the United States.
III. The cargo of the Conrad consisted of 200 barrels of flour and 47 bales of cotton goods, and was owned by said Conrad Eiselen, John S. Horne, and Joseph Young in the same proportions as they owned the vessel.
George Doudle, a citizen of the United States, was the owner of one bale of madras handkerchiefs shipped on said vessel.
IV.The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Conrad and cargo were as follows:
The value of the vessel. §2,924.53
The freight earnings. 1, 078. 77
The value of the cargo. 34, 976.00
The value of George Doudle’s invoice. 1,500. 00
Premium of insurance paid on actual value of vessel. 291.27
Premium of insurance paid on actual value of cargo. 3,497.60
Amounting in all to. 44, 268.17
V.The losses of the firm of Eiselen & Horne were as follows:
Two-thirds of the vessel. $1,949. 68
Two-thirds of freight earnings. 719.18
Two-thirds value of cargo.'. 23, 317. 33
Two-thirds premium paid on actual value of vessel. 194.18
Two-thirds premium paid on actual value of cargo. 2,331. 73
Amounting in all to. 28,512.10
The said firm of Eiselen & Horne received, as hereinafter set forth, from certain insurance companies the sum of §29,574.87, being overinsurance of §1,101.67.
VI.The losses of Joseph Young were as follows: '
One-third the value of vessel.8974.85
One-third the value of freight earnings. 359.59
One-third the value of cargo. 11, 658.67
One-third premium i>aid on actual value of vessel. 97. 09
One-third premium paid on actual value of cargo. 1,165. 87
Total. 14,256.07
The said Joseph Young afterwards received, as hereinafter set forth, from sundry underwriters §14,256.07, which fully covers his losses.
VII.April 19, 1799, the said Eiselen & Horne effected insurance with the Maryland Insurance Company on their two-thirds of the said vessel in the sum of §3,000, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent.
Thereafter the said insurance company duly paid the assured the sum of $2,940, as and for a total loss thereon.
April 19,1799, the said Eiselen & Horne effected insurance with the said Maryland Insurance Company on their two-thirds of said cargo in the sum of $10,000, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent.
Thereafter the said insurance company duly paid the said assured the sum of $8,878.29, as and for a total loss thereon.
The losses to said Maryland Insurance Company were as follows:.
Amount of insurance paid on vessel, less overinsurance. §2, 940.00
Amount of insurance paid on cargo. 8,878. 29
Amounting in all to. 11,818.29
Less overinsurance.. 424.69
Leaving. 11,393. 60
VIII.Said Eiselen & Horne effected a further insurance on their two-thirds of the said cargo with the Baltimore Insurance Company in the sum of $20,000, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent.
Thereafter the said Baltimore Insurance Company duly paid the said assured the sum of $17,756.58, as and for a total loss thereon.
The loss to the Baltimore Insurance Company was as follows:
Amount of insurance paid, on cargo. $17, 766.68
Less overinsurance. 638.08
Leaving. 17,118.50
IX. April 19, 1799, said Joseph Young effected insurance in the office of George P. ICeeports in the sum of $1,500 on his one-third of said vessel, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent by a policy underwritten in that sum by James Clarke, a citizen of the United States.
Thereafter said James Clarke duly paid the said assured the sum of $1,470, as and for a total loss thereon.
X. April 19,1799, said Joseph Young effected insurance in the office of George P. Keeports in the sum of $13,500 on his one-third of said cargo, paying therefor a premium of 10 peí-cent, said policy being underwritten by sundry persons hereinafter set forth.
Thereafter said underwriters duly paid to the assured the sum of $12,786.07, as and for a total loss by reason of the premises.
The names of the underwriters on said policy who have appeared in this case, all of whom were citizens of the United States, and the amounts paid by each of them on said policy, were as follows:
Cumberland Dugan.:. §947.17
Bedford & Morton. 947.17
Robert McKim. 947.18
Samuel Williams. 473. 59
Isaac Causten. 473.58
D. Werhagen & Groverman. 947.17
Paul Bentalou. 947.17
William Petterson. 947.17
Joseph Calman & Co. 947.17
Robert C. Boislandry. 473.58
John Hillen. 473. 58
Yon KopfE. 473.58
William Van Wyck.'. 947.17
Benjamin Williams.. 947.17
John Hollins. 947.17
XI. April 17,1799, George Doudle, a citizen of the United States, effected insurance in the office of George P. Keeports on one bale of madras handkerchiefs shipped on said vessel, in the sum of $1,500, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent, said policy being underwritten by sundry persons hereinafter set forth.
Thereafter said underwriters duly paid to the said assured the sum of $1,470 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises.
The names of said underwriters, all of whom were citizens of the United States, on said policy, and the amounts paid by each of them on same, respectively, were as follows:
Robert C. Boislandry. §294.00
John Hillen. 294.00
Paul Bentalou.. 294. 00
Isaac Causten. 294.00
William Van Wyck. 294.00
XII. The firm of Bedford & Morton was composed of Nathaniel Morton and William Bedford, both citizens of the United States. Said Morton was the survivor of the firm.
The firm of D. Werhagen & Groverman was composed of Herman D. Werhagen and Anthony Groverman, both citizens of the United States. Said Groverman was the survivor of the firm.
The firm of Joseph Caiman & Co. was composed of Joseph Caiman and Lewis Dubourg, both citizens of the United States. Said Caiman was the survivor of the firm.
The firm of Yon Kopff & Anspach was succeeded by the firms of Yon Kopff & Burne and Anspach & Burne, all of whom were citizens of the United States. Frederick W. Burne was the surviving partner.
XIII. May 23,1800, J ohn Hillen, in consideration of $1,000, assigned his claims as underwriter on the following vessels, viz: Schooner Conrad, brig Fair Columbian, brig liosetta, schooner Federal George, brig Nancy, and schooner Christopher, to Isaac Causten.
XIV. The claimants have produced letters of administration upon the estates for which they appear and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates thej’- appear are the same persons who suf-ered loss through the seizure and condemnation of the Conrad, as set forth in the preceding findings.
Mr. IK T. S. Gurtis for the claimants. Mr. Frank P. Clark was ón the brief.
Mr. John IK Trainer and Mr. Charles IK Russell (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Pradt) for the defendants.

Opinion:
Nott, Ch..J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
In the case of the schooner Nancy, Haddaway, master, and in that of the schooner Yandeput, Fitzhugh, master (present term), it appeared by the decrees of condemnation that an owner of' each vessel was foreign born, a subject of Great Britain, and that no evidence of his naturalization was produced before the prize court. It was accordingly held that the condemnations of the vessels were not illegal. In the present case it also appears that an owner of the vessel was foreign born and that no evidence of his naturalization was produced before the prize court.
The difference between those cases and the present one is that the schooner Conrad carried her American register, while the others did not. That register impressed upon the vessel the character of nationality and declared to all the world that her owners were citizens of the United States. "A certificate issued under the authority of the Government must bo taken by foreign powers as genuine and can bo impeached by them only byT application to the Government of the United States." (3 Whart. Int. L., sec. 409.) Who is and who is not a citizen .of the United States must be determined by the Government of the United States, and once authoritatively determined can not be questioned by the tribunals of a foreign power.
This remark, of course, does not extend to cases where a foreign power is the one to which the person originally owed allegiance. The right of an individual to expatriate himself without the permission of his own government has been one of the vexatious diplomatic questions of the last century and has been generally the subject of adjustment by treaty. But that right to question citizenship does not extend to nations who claim no allegiance from the individual. To the French courts in the eighteenth century the register of an American vessel should have been conclusive evidence; its only impeachment could have been through the application of the French Government to the Government of the United States, giving reasons whj^ the register should bo set aside.
It must therefore be held in this case that the condemnation of the schooner Conrad was illegal, and the case will be so reported to Congress, together with a copy of this opinion,