THE

JULIA,

LUCE,

It is not denied, that the Julia, with this cargo on board, was ordered to proceed, and that she did in fact proceed, to Lisbon; and that it was the intention of the owners that the cargo should be there sold, to the best MASTER. advantage, to merchants or other subjects of that government; nor is it denied, that the Julia and cargo did, in fact, proceed to Lisbon for these purposes.

It is not denied, that this cargo of corn, flour and bread, was in fact carried to Lisbon, there landed, and sold to a house of merchants of that city. It is also a fact, probably not disputed, that the cargo of salt, with which the Julia was laden, and with which she was captured. on her homeward voyage, was purchased with the proceeds of the cargo sold at Lisbon. And it is not pretended that there was any intercourse with the enemy at Lisbon, or with any of his agents; or that there was in reality, any sale, contract or other transaction by the Claimants, or their agents, that any part of the cargo, or of the proceeds of it, should, in any manner, serve as a supply or come to the hands and possession of the enemy. On the other hand, it does not appear from all the evidence in the case, that the whole object of the voyage was to export the cargo of the Julia to Lisbon, there to be sold, and the proceeds to be invested in such funds as are pointed out in the owners' letter of instructions to the. captain. The intention to trade with, or supply, the enemy, is proved only from the prima facie evidence of the license and other British documents; and this evidence is fully explained and counteracted by the whole mass of evidence in the case, shewing the real object of the voyage, and that no supply, trading or intercourse were in fact had with the enemy.

If the bare possession or acceptance of a license condemns the property which it purports to protect, the Julia must be condemned; but if the presumptive or prima facie evidence resulting from the possession of the license, however obnoxious may be the terms of it, can be explained and counteracted by evidence of the facts, the Julia and cargo must be restored. The former position, it is conceived, will never be sanctioned by this Court; and if the latter be not established, the Claimants will be severely punished for an act which they never committed. and which they never intended to commit, viz. that of trading with, and supplying the enemies of their coun

LUCE,

THE try. The case of the Julia, therefore, turns upon a quesJULIA, tion of fact. tion of fact. Did the Julia pursue a voyage to a neutral port, and was her cargo disposed of to the subjects of a MASTER. neutral country, or did she pursue the voyage and furnish the supplies to the enemy, which appear to have been the objects of the British admiral? It is repugnant to law and reason, that a man shall not be permitted to prove his innocence; and, when he has proved it, that he should be held guilty, and punished. If taken with the mainour, may he not prove that he came honestly by the goods?

If a contrary doctrine be established, it will lead to one inevitable result; viz. a prohibition of all trade from this to a neutral country which happens to be in alliance with Great Britain: it will be, in fact, declaring that a cargo of flour shall not be exported to Spain or Portugal, because the neutral subjects, to whom it may be there sold, may sell it again to their British allies.

This case is distinguishable from, and stands upon much firmer ground than that of the Aurora. In that case, the ship was taken on her outward passage, and (as it was alleged) out of her course to her ostensible port. It was therefore impossible for the Claimants to remove the presumption against them, arising from the possession of the license, by the subsequent events of the voyage. But in this case, every thing is explained, and every doubt or suspicion removed by the evidence shewing the bona fide objects and ultimate termination of the voyage. The case is thus cleansed of every thing that might be presumed to be foul by the unhappy terms of the license, or the officious and unofficial interpositions of Mr. Allen. The case must turn upon the bona fide views, and intention of the Claimants, and upon the evidence that, in point of fact, no unlawful intercourse between them and the enemy ever existed, or was ever contemplated. If they have merely accepted a license, but have made no unlawful use of it, they cannot be injured by it.

RUSH, Attorney General, in behalf of the United States.

It is utterly impossible that, if any American property, embarked in a trade under an enemy license, can be the subject of prize, this should escape. The transaction is the most obnoxious of its class; and presents the

leading question in its most advantageous forms for the captors.

THE

JULIA,

LUCE,

The object of the enemy was supply to the allied ar- MASTER. mies in Portugal and Spain. The engagement to execute that purpose was the consideration of the protection granted by the license. The purpose was executed in fact, and in strict conformity with the engagement. The homeward cargo was purchased with the proceeds of the outward; and, when captured, was still under the protection of the license. If the circumstances in this case do not amount to a trading with the enemy, there is no such thing. If this license, (or rather these licenses,) should not be held to give to the property a hostile character, no license, whatever may be the facts with which it is combined, can produce that effect.

There can be no foundation for restitution in this case but one. It has been doubted whether American property can, for any cause, become subject to confiscation as prize, when captured by a privateer; and it will be contended (as it is understood) in the case of the Frances, that it cannot.

The capture on this occasion, however, was made by a national vessel, in virtue of the declaration of war, and the public law of the world operating upon it. The attorney general does not believe that this difference in fact creates any difference in the legal conclusion; because he supposes that privateers have, upon the sound construction of the act of congress, the same rights of capture with national vessels ; but he contends that, even if it should be held that the rights of capture, vested by their commissions in private armed vessels, are confined to property strictly (not constructively) British, the rights of national vessels are not so restricted.'

The Court is referred to the opinion at large (in the transcript,) of the learned judge by whom this cause was decided in the Circuit Court, for a very able discussion of the doctrine which it involves.

Monday, March 7th, 1814. Absent...TODD, J.

STORY, J. delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:

1

THE

JULIA,

The facts of this case, and the grounds upon which a decree of condemnation was pronounced in the Circuit LUCE, Court, fully appear in the opinion of that Court which MASTER. accompanies this record. That opinion has been submitted to my brethren, and a majority of them concur in the decree of condemnation, upon the reasons and principles therein stated. It is not thought necessary to repeat those reasons and principles in a more formal manner; it is sufficient to declare as the result of them, that we hold, that the sailing on a voyage under the license and passport of protection of the enemy, in furtherance of his views or interests, constitutes such an act of illegality, as subjects the ship and cargo to confiscation as prize of war; and that the facts of the present case afford irrefragable evidence of such act of illegality.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmcd with costs.

The following is the opinion of the Circuit Court of Massachusetts referred to, in the foregoing opinion.

"The Julia and cargo were captured, as prize, by the United States' frigate Chesapeake, commanded by captain Evans, on the 31st December, 1812. From the preparatory evidence and documents it appears that she sailed from Baltimore, on or about the 31st October, 1812, bound on a voyage to Lisbon, with a cargo of corn, bread and flour; and the capture took place on the return voyage to the United States. The vessel and cargo were documented as American, and as owned by the Claimants, who are American citizens. The vessel had on board sundry documents of protection from British agents, which were delivered up to the captors, and, together with the other ship's papers, were put on board of the prize, in the custody of the prize master; and these documents were the unquestionable cause of the capture. It appears that the American master and crew were left on board the prize, and, during the subsequent voyage to the United States, these British documents were taken from the custody of the prize master surreptitiously and without his knowledge as to the time or manner: he alleged expressly that they were stolen, and this allegation seems

admitted by the master, in a supplementary affidavit, who, however, denies any knowledge or connexion in the transaction. The prize master took exact copies of these documents, for the purpose of sending them to the secretary of the navy; which copies have been produced in Court, and verified by his affidavit. All the other original documents have been faithfully produced. Upon the examination of the master upon the standing interrogatories, on the 18th February, 1812, although there are several interrogatories, and particularly the 16th and 27th, which point directly to the subject matter, he did not state the existence of any British document, passport, safeguard or protection; and, what is quite as remarkable, he expressly declared that he knew not upon what pretence nor for what reason the vessel and cargo were captured. It was not until after the time assigned for the trial, and on the 8th of March, 1813, that the master, by a supplementary affidavit, (which was admitted through great indulgence, and contrary to the general practice of prize Courts,) attempted to explain his omission, and to vindicate his misconduct. The apology is equally weak and futile. At the time when these examinations were taken, the interrogatories had been drawn up with care and deliberation. The commissioners were present to explain to the understanding of every man intent on truth, the meaning of any question which might appear obscure. The master was a part owner of the vessel and cargo, and the regular depository of all the papers connected with the voyage. It is utterly incredible that he should not recollect, on his examination, the existence of these British documents. They were put on board for the special safeguard and security of the vessel and cargo. Indeed, independent of them, the risque of the capture would have been imminent. A master can never be admitted to be heard, in a prize Court, to aver his ignorance or forgetfulness of the documents of his ship. It is his duty to know what they are; and he cannot be believed ignorant of their contents, without overthrowing all the presumptions which govern in prize proceedings. Looking to the whole conduct of the master, it seems to be irreconcilable with the rules of morality and fair dealing; and I have great difficulty in exempting him from the imputation of being guilty of a wilful suppression of the truth.