Part 28 (1/2)
”_In re_ LAFAYETTE.
”The s.h.i.+p being under the enemy's flag and register, is condemned.
With reference to the cargo, there are certificates, prepared in due form, and sworn to before the British Consul, that it was purchased, and s.h.i.+pped, on neutral account. These _ex parte_ statements are precisely such as every unscrupulous merchant would prepare, to deceive his enemy, and save his property from capture. There are two s.h.i.+pping-houses in the case; that of Craig & Nicoll, and that of Montgomery Bros. Messrs. Craig & Nicoll say, that the grain s.h.i.+pped by them, belongs to Messrs. Shaw & Finlay, and to Messrs. Hamilton, Megault & Thompson, all of Belfast, in Ireland, to which port the s.h.i.+p is bound, but the grain is not consigned to them, and they could not demand possession of it, under the bill of lading. It is, on the contrary, consigned _to the order_ of the s.h.i.+ppers; thus leaving the possession, and control of the property, in the hands of the s.h.i.+ppers. Farther: The s.h.i.+ppers, instead of sending this grain to the pretended owners, in a _general_ s.h.i.+p, on freight, consigned to them, they paying freight, as usual, have chartered the whole s.h.i.+p, and stipulated, themselves, for the payment of all the freights. If this property had been, _bona fide_, the property of the parties in Belfast, named in the depositions, it would undoubtedly have gone consigned to them, in a bill of lading, authorizing them to demand possession of it, and the agreement with the s.h.i.+p would have been, that the consignees and owners of the property should pay the freight, upon delivery. But even if this property were purchased, as pretended, by Messrs. Craig & Nicoll, for the parties named, still, their not consigning it to them, and delivering them the proper bill of lading, pa.s.sing the possession, left the property in the possession, and under the dominion of Craig & Nicoll, and as such liable to capture. See 3 _Phillimore on International Law_, 610, 612, to the effect, that if the goods are going on account of the s.h.i.+pper, _or subject to his order or control_, they are good prize. They cannot even be sold, and transferred to a neutral, _in transitu_.
They must abide by their condition, _at the time of the sailing of the s.h.i.+p_.
”The property attempted to be covered by the Messrs. Montgomery Bros., is s.h.i.+pped by Montgomery Bros., of New York, and consigned to Montgomery Bros., in Belfast. Here the consignment is all right. The possession of the property has legally pa.s.sed to the Belfast house.
But when there are two houses of trade doing business as partners, and one of them resides in the enemy's country, the other house, though resident in a neutral country, becomes also enemy, _quoad_ the trade of the house in the enemy's country, and its share in any property belonging to the joint concern is subject to capture, equally with the share of the house in the enemy's country. To this point, see 3 _Phillimore_, 605. Cargo condemned.”
This is the whole case of the _Lafayette_. As this case was coupled, in the criticisms in the Yankee papers to which I have alluded, and which the reader will see presently, with the case of the _Lauretta_, not yet captured, I will antic.i.p.ate the capture of this s.h.i.+p by a few days, that the reader may have the facts also in her case.
”_In re_ LAURETTA.
”The s.h.i.+p being under the enemy's colors and register, is condemned.
There are two s.h.i.+ppers of the cargo, the house of Chamberlain, Phelps & Co., and Mr. H. J. Burden--all the s.h.i.+ppers resident, and doing business in the city of New York. Chamberlain, Phelps & Co., s.h.i.+p 1424 barrels of flour, and a lot of pipe staves, to be delivered at Gibraltar, _or_ Messina, _to their own order_, and 225 kegs of nails to be delivered at Messina, to Mariano Costarelli. The bill of lading for the flour and staves has the following indors.e.m.e.nt, sworn to before a notary: 'State, City, and County of New York: Louis Contencin, being duly sworn, says, that he is clerk with Chamberlain, Phelps & Co., and that part of the merchandise in the within bill of lading is the property of the subjects of the King of Italy.' This certificate is void for uncertainty. It does not separate the property in the bill of lading, and say which of it belongs to the 'subjects of the King of Italy,' and which to the enemy. For aught that appears, 'the subjects' alluded to may own no more than a single pipe-staff apiece. Indeed, they can own nothing, as it does not appear _what_ they own. Further: If the property was identified in the certificate, the 'subjects of the King of Italy' are not. No man--for there is none named--could claim the property under this certificate. It is, therefore, void, for this reason. See 3 _Phillimore_, 596.
But the flour and staves are consigned _to the order of the s.h.i.+ppers_, and this, alone, would be sufficient to condemn them, even if the articles had been identified, and the proper owners pointed out in the certificate. The _possession of the property at the time of the sailing of the s.h.i.+p, must be divested out of the enemy-s.h.i.+pper_. See 3 _Phillimore_, 610, 612, cited in the case of the _Lafayette_.
The contingent destination of this property, is another pregnant circ.u.mstance. It shows that it was intended _for a market_, and not for any particular neutral owner. It was to be delivered at Gibraltar _or_ Messina, as the s.h.i.+ppers might determine, after the sailing of the s.h.i.+p--probably upon advices received by steamer. So much for the claim of Chamberlain, Phelps & Co.
”The property s.h.i.+pped by H. J. Burden, consists of 998 barrels of flour, and 290 boxes of herring, and is consigned to Charles R.
Blandy, Esq., at Funchal, Madeira. The s.h.i.+pper makes the following affidavit before the British Consul, in New York: 'That all and singular, the goods specified in the annexed bill of lading, were s.h.i.+pped by H. J. Burden, in the bark _Lauretta_, for, and on account of, H. J. Burden, subject of her Britannic Majesty.' Mr. Burden may be a very good subject of her Britannic Majesty, but he describes himself as of 42 Beaver Street, New York City, and seems to lose sight of the fact, that his domicile in an enemy's country, for the purposes of trade, makes him, _quoad_ that trade, an enemy. Cargo condemned.”
The reader is now in a condition to understand the following criticism, from that very elegant sheet, the New York ”Commercial Advertiser,” and to appreciate the justice and courtesy with which I was treated by the press of New York, generally.
”THE ALABAMA.
”BRITISH AND ITALIAN PROPERTY DESTROYED--PORTUGAL ALSO INVOLVED.
”_The English Authorities Acting.--Important Facts._--Some important facts have just been developed in relation to the operations of the rebel privateer _Alabama_, and the present and prospective action of the British and other foreign Governments, whose citizens have lost property by the piracies of her commander.
The depredations of the vessel involve the rights of no less than three European governments--England, Italy, and Portugal--and are likely to become a subject of special interest to all maritime nations.
”Already the capture and burning of the s.h.i.+p _Lafayette_, which contained an English cargo, has been the occasion of a correspondence between the British Consul at this port, Mr. Archibald, and Rear-Admiral Milne, commanding the British squadron on the American coast; and it is stated (but we cannot vouch for the truth of the statement) that the Admiral has dispatched three war-vessels in pursuit of the pirate. The Consul has also, we understand, communicated the facts of the case to the British Government and Her Majesty's Minister at Was.h.i.+ngton. What action will be taken by the British Government, remains to be seen.
”The _Lafayette_ sailed from this port with a cargo of grain for Belfast, Ireland. The grain was owned _by two English firms of this city_, and the facts were properly certified on the bills of lading under the British national seal. The _Lafayette_ was, however, a Boston vessel, and was commanded by Captain Saunders. The facts of the burning have been published.
”But another case (that of the bark _Lauretta_) is about to be submitted for the consideration of the British authorities, as well as those of Italy and Portugal. The facts establish a clear case of piracy. The _Lauretta_, which had on board a cargo consisting princ.i.p.ally of flour and staves, was burned by Semmes on the 28th of October. She was bound from this port for the island of Madeira and the port of Messina, in Italy. Nearly a thousand barrels of flour and also a large number of staves were s.h.i.+pped by Mr. H. J. Burden, a British subject residing in this city, to a relative in Funchal, Madeira. The bill of lading bore the British seal affixed by the Consul, to whom the s.h.i.+pper was personally known. The other part of the cargo was s.h.i.+pped by Chamberlain, Phelps & Co., to the order of parties in Messina, and this property was also covered by the Italian Consular certificates.
”The Portuguese Consul at this port also sent a package under seal, to the authorities at Madeira, besides giving a right to enter the port and sending an open bill of lading.
”Captain Wells' account of the manner in which Semmes disposed of these doc.u.ments, and which he has verified under oath, is not only interesting, but gives an excellent idea of the piratical intentions of the commander of the _Alabama_.
”The papers of the bark were, at the command of Semmes, taken by Captain Wells on board the _Alabama_. There was no American cargo, and therefore no American papers, except those of the vessel. These, of course, were not inquired into. Semmes took first the packet which bore the Portuguese seal, and with an air which showed that he did not regard it as of the slightest consequence, ripped it open, and threw it upon the floor, with the remark that 'he did not care a d----n for the Portuguese.' The Italian bill of lading was treated in a similar manner, except that he considered it unworthy even of a remark.
”Taking up the British bill of lading and looking at the seal, Semmes called upon Captain Wells, with an oath, to explain. It was evidently the only one of the three he thought it worth his while to respect.
”'Who is this Burden?' he inquired sneeringly. 'Have you ever seen him?'
”'I am not acquainted with him; but I have seen him once, when he came on board my vessel,' replied Captain Wells.
”'Is he an Englishman--does he look like an Englishman?'
”'Yes,' rejoined the captain.