Sir,
I do myself the honor to lay before Congress the enclosed note from the Minister of France, a letter from the Marquis de Bouillé with translations of both, and the proceedings of the Council of Assembly of Dominique; all of which relate to the case of the ship Resolution's cargo, part of which was adjudged lawful prize by the sentence of the Court of Appeals; and the case of the brigantine Eeirsten and her cargo, which was also adjudged lawful prize by the said Court.[21]
The case of the ship Resolution, as far as I have been able to learn, was simply this, she was a Dutch vessel, freighted on account of capitulants at Dominique, and bound for Holland, agreeably to the seventh Article of the capitulation. She was taken by a British ship, retaken by one of our privateers, and condemned by the Court of Admiralty of this State, whose decree was reversed and the ship and cargo acquitted, except a small part of the latter, on the principle of its not being the property of capitulants, and because, as was alleged, it was not protected by the ordinances of Congress, approving the principles of the armed neutrality, Great Britain and Holland being at open war; from whence it was inferred by the Court, that the Dutch vessel could not be considered as sufficiently neutral to protect the property of an enemy. The papers referred to in the memorial of the Minister of France serve to show, that the whole cargo belonged to capitulants.
The other vessel, the Eeirsten, was purchased in London by a company of Imperial subjects residing at Ostend, freighted in England with British property for the use of the capitulants at Dominique. The vessel sailed from London, and on her way to Dominique touched at the port of Ostend, for the purpose of converting her English papers into German. In the passage from Ostend to Dominique, this brigantine was taken by an American privateer, carried into Boston and acquitted, with her cargo; but the Judges of Appeals have condemned as lawful prize, both vessel and cargo. They consider the cargo as unprotected by the capitulation of Dominique. They consider the vessel as carrying on a trade advantageous to the enemy, in contravention to the seventeenth Article of the capitulation; that she forfeited the right of neutrality by not showing an exact impartiality to the belligerent powers; and because she had false and colorable papers on board, with a view to give the cargo the appearance of neutral property. They allow, that a vessel under their circumstances is to be considered as an enemy's, and that by the law of nations, they should be subject to seizure and confiscation. They consider the cargo as unprotected by the laws of Congress, because (as they affirm) this vessel cannot be thought to be strictly neutral, that Congress meant to pay a regard to right of neutrality, that the right of neutrality only extends protection to the effects and goods of an enemy in neutral bottoms, not engaged in the violation of this right. I have sent the seventh and seventeenth Articles of the capitulation for the information of Congress.
From this statement Congress will judge of the expediency of directing a rehearing in both cases. In the first, it seems to be dictated by a regard for justice upon the new proofs. And in the second, the reasoning, which determined the Court, does not appear to be so conclusive as to render it improper in so intricate a case, more particularly as our situation with respect to the Emperor is peculiarly delicate; from which consideration, as well as from the respect which is due to the representation of the Minister of his Most Christian Majesty, I am humbly of opinion that a rehearing ought to be granted, and that in the meanwhile the officers of the Court should be directed to retain in their hands the proceeds of the vessel and cargo.
I have the honor to be, &c.
ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.
FOOTNOTES:
[21] See an account of these ships in M. de la Luzerne's Correspondence, above, [pp. 66]–72.