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/ssactsengr0391 and id is 1 raw text is: THE JULIANA
as a joint captor, even to the extent of the persons actually composing the boat's
crew ; much less, to establish a claim of joint capture for the whole ship to which the
boat belongs. I have not been able to find any precedent to that effect ; nor has
any been produced by the counsel, in consequence of the enquiry which I directed to
be made. Extremely different in principle is such a case, from the case of [327] two
ships, on the grounds which I have already stated.
I am of opinion both on principle and authority, that where no antecedent
agreement is proved to have taken place, a vessel lying in harbour cannot be entitled
to share in a capture made out of the harbour, by the circumstance of her boat
being merely in sight. I have already expressed my opinion that this was a capture
made out of the harbour of St. Helena. I am, therefore, disposed to reject this
allegation, (a) in the first instance, as one that cannot benefit the parties, if it is
admitted to go to proof. It is a case, however, very proper to be brought before
the Court, and one in which I think the parties may justly be allowed their expenses.
[328] THE JULIANA -(Carstens, Master). April 27, 1803.-Colonial trade-How
far the trade to Senegal is to be considered within the principle of the colonial
trade.-Description of the nature of the settlements of Senegal, Goree, &c.
This was a case of a Danish ship, taken on a voyage from Bourdeaux to Senegal.
The ship had gone from Hamburgh to Bourdeaux, where the chief part of the former
cargo had been delivered, and a supercargo had been taken on board, with the bulk
of the present cargo, under instructions to proceed to the coast and Senegal, and
to obtain, if possible, a returned cargo of gum.
The ship had sailed to Corunna, and was from thence going, at the time of the
capture, to Senegal.
The part of the cargo put on board at Hamburgh was restored under the authority
of The Immanuel. (a)
The question that arose in this case was, Whether Senegal was to be considered as
a colony, or settlement of France, in such a manner as to bring this case under the
principle applied to the colonial trade of the enemy, by which, property taken in
trade between the mother-country and the colony is held liable to confiscation. On
a former day it had been contended, that the trade of Senegal did not stand on the
ordinary footing of the colonial trade ; that France had never exercised an exclusive
trade to Senegal, but that foreign merchants had been admitted to trade there,
generally, in all articles, except gum ; that this vessel was going as a general trader
only, with a direction [329] to get gum, if it could be obtained, but without any such
absolute injunctions, as made a return of gum a necessary consequence of the present
voyage. Some affidavits were then offered, stating instances of American ships that
had traded to Senegal in 1783, 1787, and 1788.
On the other side, the King's Advocate relied on the case of The Worcester (Adm.
12 Jan. 1802), in which, an American ship taken, with a cargo of gum, on a voyage
from Senegal to France, was condemned-the claimant having failed to comply with
the order of the Court that had been made upon him, to shew that it was a trade
ordinarily open to foreigners, and not arising out of the state of war.
The Court declined to conclude this case, and these claimants, by the inability of
the former parties, to produce such proof ; and gave leave to the claimants, and
also to the captors, to produce information as to the state of the trade of Senegal
prior to the war.
(a) In the case of The Nancy, Knudson (Lords, 1st Dec. 1803), this same
question was brought to the decision of the Lords of Appeal, in an allegation offered
on the part of the Royal Admiral, stating nearly the same facts as are set forth in
the preceding recital-but concluding with an averment of rather a stronger case,-
that the boat's crew of the Royal Admiral came up very soon after the boat of
the Trusty, and were admitted on board the Nancy, and did actually render
assistance by navigating the ship into port, and bringing her to an anchor in the
harbour of St. Helena ; and further that the respective ships the Royal Admiral
and the Trusty were lying at anchor at St. Helena, and were within sight and seen
by the officers and crew of the Nancy, at the time of the capture.-The Court of
Appeal rejected the allegation, as not sufficient in law to support the demand.
(a) 2 C. Rob. 186.
4 C. ROB. SZ7.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0391&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)