Open main menu

Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/19

This page needs to be proofread.

· Fzbsxtal. COURT or Arenas gg f is contended, that this cargo is not within the prote&ion‘of the 1;y$r. articles of capitulation; that is, that the vom was calculated /’V� for Great Britain, and not for dnylerdam in nd, and there- . fore in breach and out of the proteélion of the capitulation. _ This argument is grounded upon {`cveral circumltanccs and upon evidence, that point at {`ome latent ohjeét, but do not {`peak deci- {ively upon it: They prove a {`ecrecy and conoealmc¤t,with regard to the voyage to Dominica, and the taking a` cargo there; but all thefe cimumitanccs are ealily explained, without adopting the idea that the voyage was intended fry: Great Britain. Whatia fuggelled in Cape. Waterburglfs letter, was a mere precautionary ‘ meafure to avoid Brirj/li cruizers, that perpetually harralied the Dutc}:_trade,by capturing their veliels. In the fame letter he men- tions the capture of a Holland {hip which had been carried into St. Kilt: and releafed; the letter is dated Er;/laeia; and the man- oeuvres he mentioned were to {`ecure the voyage to Dominica. The voyage from Dominica to Anjierdam, we have. no doubt, was planned in London, between the capitulants there, owning ellates in Dominica, and Daniel H@ren, agent for Branllglzt E Son. The letter addreifed to MorJoa,atDominica,was dated at .Am_/Icrdam, tho' wrote in London, becaufe Brantligbt if Son lived at Anylerdam, and becaufe the cargo was to be couligned to them at Anferdam, aud it was dated the `day of the date of his own letter, which inclofed it,`beca¤fe it was then wrote. As for the fecrecy enjoined in Brantliglu U Son’.r letter to Captain Water- liargb while at Eifatia, with regard to the voyage to Dominica and the taking a cargo there, we cannot think they had any other motive for it than fuch as often inlluences merchants in the con- du& of a fair trade, to lteep to themfelves their commercial plans. But what force can thefe circumltances have when op- ·po{`ed by the politive evidencethat is produced? The Bill of Lading and a variety of letters from the {hippers and attomies for the owners in London, {`ome addreded to Brantligbt Es' Son, and others to the owners, prove that the voyage was for Amfer- dam ; all the {hip papers alfo rove it. But the depolitions of lVatcrl»urgb and Mor¢n, to whom the {hip was conligned, and by whom the {hip was loaded, are concluiivez They, iipon clear- ing out of the {hip, {`wear exprefsly that {he was deitined for dnylcrzlam. ‘ _ We are now come to the lait ground, which has been taltcn to prove the cargo not to be proteflcd by the articles of capitulation, which is: That the property of the cargo on board, was the property of Brityblubjeéts, not reiidents or owning efkates in Dominica. But what is the evidence produced to prove this? It is a letter from Moreyon to Brantliglat U Son, in which he mentions the alarm occalioned by the rupture be- tween Great Britain and the State: General, and the fears and apprehenlion