HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0401 and id is 1 raw text is: THE VANGUARD 9
that is to govern this particular case, and to supersede the general principle of law.
It is proper therefore that the result of that negotiation should be carefully examined,
that we may judge what was asked, and what was conceded. I confess it does
appear to me that the passages which have been cited in their natural sense apply
to the external commerce. The object of the application is stated to be, to prevent
the remaining commerce from being transferred to the city of Embden. What
commerce must we suppose to be meant ? not merely the little commerce of [205]
Varel, but the remaining portion of the maritime commerce of Bremen. Again
it is represented, that the land carriage between Bremen and Varel is impracticable ;
that English vessels consigned to Bremen, had arrived in the Jade under convoy.
These terms seem to have pointed out to the notice of the statesman to whom they
were addressed, that the object of the petitioners was to obtain permission, that the
importation and exportation of the foreign commerce of the city of Bremen might
be carried on in this manner. The letter then states, that the River Jade was
not safe, that there were not sufficient warehouses to store the goods, and that
it was necessary that they should be forwarded as expeditiously as possible to
Bremen. These are certainly expressions which very much repel the more limited
interpretation to which the permission considered separately, and by itself, might
be liable. There is another passage also of material importance, which states,
that these lighters are too small and too slight to venture into the open sea, that
they can only coast along the shore; that they proceed direct from Bremen to
Varel without resorting to or touching at the country occupied by the French,
so that no abuse being possible to be made of these vessels or barks, the city of Bremen
is the more induced to hope, &c. &c. From this representation it appears to me,
that the two abuses proposed to the British Government as not likely to occur,
are the direct communication with Bremen by ships from sea, and the touching
on the parts of the coast occupied by the French. These consequences, they say,
could not happen; and that representation is material, I think, in fixing the inter-
pretation of that .admonition against abuse, which is contained in the answer of the
British Government; which [206] informs them, that due attention has been paid
to the request sigpified to Lord Harrowby in several notes from Mr. G. on the part
of the town of Bremen, that lighters might be allowed to navigate between the
Rivers Jade and Weser. That orders had been given to His Majesty's ships employed
in the blockade of the latter, to permit the passage of lighters (really coming within
that description, and laden with innocent and neutral cargoes) to pass and repass
over the shallows between Varel and Bremen. That His Majesty trusts that care
will be taken that this permission may not be abused or any advantage taken, which
would compel him to revert to all the strictness of the blockade.
When I see that the permission was asked without any qualification whatever,
and that nothing is said in the answer that lays any restriction on the foreign com-
merce of Bremen, but only provides against abuses, which must be understood to
mean those stated in the application, I am of opinion that the merchants of Bremen
are justified in the interpretation which they have put on this indulgence. How
far it may affect the general purposes of the blockade it is not for me to consider.
It might perhaps appear, that the object of the blockade would be almost entirely
frustrated by such concession. If it should be found to do so, the mischief must
be remedied by supplementary provisions. But when I look to the communication,
in which the thing is asked in terms which manifestly point to this kind of trade,
and the answer appears to grant the permission in the terms of the petition, I am
of opinion that the claimants were justified in the particular trade which they
have been carrying on, and that they are entitled to the restitution of this property
on payment of the captors expenses.
[207] (INSTANCE COURT.)
THE VANGUARD -(Pince, Master). Nov. 22, 1805.-Suit for wages-ex turpi
Contractu-not sustained-Violation of slave trade Acts, &c.
This was a case on petition for the recovery of wages and the privilege of three
slaves, alleged to be due to W. Taylor, for his services on board the vessel in the
capacity of mate during a voyage from Liverpool to the West Indies, and back
to Liverpool, under contract of the 2d September, 1802.
On the part of the owners, Swabey-Contended that the nature of the contract
903
6 C. ROB. 205.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0401&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)