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/ssactsengr0428 and id is 1 raw text is: 1464 LE LOUIS 2 DODS. 209.
below. The anomaly will still remain, that the ship, to which the excuse would
have applied in a manner more strongly [209] and directly than to the cargo, has
been condemned : but, thinking as I do, that the necessity has been fully proved,
and that it must have been known to the Court, whether it existed or not, I shall
not disturb the sentence of restitution. I shall, however, allow the seizors their
expenses.
[210] LE Louis -(Forest). December 15, 1817.-The sentence of a Vice-
Admiralty Court, condemning a French ship for being employed in the slave
trade, and forcibly resisting the search of the King's cruisers, reversed.-No
British Act of Parliament, or commission founded on it, if inconsistent with
the law of nations can affect the rights or interests of foreigners.
[Followed, The San Juan Nepomuceno, 1824, 1 Hagg. 267. Adopted, R. v.
Keyn, 1876, 2 Ex. D. 210.]
This was the case of a French vessel which sailed from Martinique on the 30th
of January 1816, destined on a voyage to the coast of Africa and back, and was
captured ten or twelve leagues to the southward of Cape Mesurada, by the Queen
Charlotte cutter, on the 11th of March in the same year, and carried to Sierra
Leone. She was proceeded against in the Vice-Admiralty Court of that colony,
and the information pleaded,-lst, That the seizors were duly and legally com-
missioned to make captures and seizures. 2d, That the seizure was within the
jurisdiction of the Court. 3d, That the vessel belonged to French subjects or others,
and was fitted out, manned, and navigated for the purpose of carrying on the African
slave trade, after that trade had been abolished by the internal laws of France, and
by the treaty between Great Britain and France. 4th, That the vessel had bar-
gained for twelve slaves at Mesurada, and was prevented by the capture alone from
taking them on board. 5th, That the brig being engaged in the slave trade, contrary
to the laws of France, and the law of nations, was liable to condemnation, and could
derive no protection from the French or any other flag. 6th, That the crew of the
brig resisted the Queen Charlotte, and piratically killed eight of her crew, and
wounded twelve others. 7th, That the vessel being engaged in this illegal traffic,
resisted the King's duly commissioned cruisers, and did not [211] allow of search
until overpowered by numbers. And 8th, That by reason of the circumstances
stated, the vessel was out of the protection of any law, and liable to condemnation.
The ship was condemned to His Majesty in the Vice-Admiralty Court at Sierra
Leone, and from this decision an appeal was made to this Court.
For the respondent, the King's Advocate and Adams contended, that the stipu-
lation in the additional article of the treaty between Great Britain and France, of
the 20th of November 1815 (App. N), carried with it a legal presumption that the
slave trade had been abolished by the laws of France prior to that period; and
that the official declaration of M. de Talleyrand, dated on the 30th of July (App. I)
in the same year, carried back the presumption still further. They admitted that
an intention only on the part of the French Government to abolish the traffic would
not be sufficient, and that there must be some legal act for that purpose ; but they
argued that the treaty itself was evidence that such an act had really taken place.
That if not a proof conclusive in law, it was at least sufficient to throw the onus
probandi most strongly on the adverse party, and imposed upon them the necessity
of shewing that, by the laws of France, the slave-trade was allowed at the time of
capture : the legal presumption was, that the treaty had been duly performed, and
it was for the opposite party to rebut the presumption. They then cited the case
of The Amedie (1 Dods. 84 n.), in which it is laid down generally by the superior
Court that the slave trade is primafacie illegal, and that [212] the burden of proof
is on the claimants to shew that the laws of their own country permit such a traffic.
The evidence, however, they contended, contained explicit proof that the treaty
had actually been carried into effect ; and in support of this, they again referred to
the official declaration of the French minister (App. I), stating that directions had
been given for the abolition of the trade. This, they said, was a declaration not
of an intention to abolish, but of the abolition itself,-of an act done and past. This
was still further confirmed by a subsequent act, viz. the ordonnance of the French
King in January 1817 (App. R), which inflicted particular penalties on persons
engaging in the slave trade. It was no just inference that because additional](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0428&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)