Where enemy's property is fraudulently blended in the same claim
with neutral property, the latter is liable to share in the fate of
the former.
This vessel and the cargo were libeled as prize of war. The ship
was claimed by John E. Smith, the supercargo, in behalf of John
Meyer, alleged to be a Russian subject residing at St. Petersburg.
The cargo consisted of logwood and cotton, 200 bales of which were
claimed by Smith in behalf of Platzman & Gosler, also alleged
to be Russian merchants of St. Petersburg. The remainder of the
cargo, consisting of 950 bales of cotton, and 58 tons of logwood,
were
Page 14 U. S. 418
claimed in behalf of John Inerarity, a Scotchman domiciled at
Pensacola and an adopted Spanish subject. The vessel was restored
in the district court and the cargo condemned except the logwood,
which was restored. Both parties appealed to the circuit court, and
the cause was then heard and considered, but that court, under the
influence of personal considerations, rendered only a
pro
forma decree affirming the sentence of the district court, at
the same time expressing a strong opinion that both vessel and
cargo were liable to condemnation. The cause had been continued at
the last term of this Court for further proof, but no further proof
was produced at the present term.
JOHNSON, J., delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:
This case presents itself in this Court under a cloud of
circumstances unusually threatening. There is scarcely wanting in
it one of those characteristics by which courts of admiralty are
led to the detection of neutral fraud. Whether we consider the
persons who conduct the voyage, the original character of the
vessel, the time and circumstances of the transfer, the trade she
has since been engaged in, the funds with which that trade has been
transacted, or the manner in which it has been conducted, we find
all the hopes and wishes of the adventure centering
Page 14 U. S. 419
in the hostile country. La French, the master, is a native Dane,
a naturalized American citizen, a Russian subject, and finally
domiciled and his family residing in Great Britain, but (as he
declares himself) having no particular residence. Smith, the
supercargo, is a native Englishman, but a naturalized citizen of
the United States. He has resided near 30 years in Baltimore, where
the war finds him. He sails for Lisbon, from thence to Great
Britain, and is almost immediately, without showing any pretensions
to such credit, employed by an opulent house of trade to take
charge of this adventure, with a latitude of discretion which could
be the result only of long acquaintance or very strong
recommendations. Such men are the proper instruments of belligerent
or neutral fraud; they are the avowed panders of the mercantile
world; their consciences are in the market. Having no national
character or feeling and but very few qualms of any other kind,
their talents and fidelity to their employers, like those of the
bravo, are sought out by the projectors of iniquitous adventure.
And who are Meyer, and Platzman & Gosler? They are introduced
in the bills of the day as very important personages; the one was
the owner of the ship, the other of the cargo; but we find them
acting a part conspicuous only for its insignificance. They cross
the stage and disappear. It is a circumstance which scarcely admits
of explanation that Meyer never exercised a single act of ownership
over this vessel. He resides at St. Petersburg, she is lying at
Cronstadt. He purchases her, for aught we know, without having ever
seen
Page 14 U. S. 420
her, of a person whom nobody knows, and whom nothing connects
with the vessel; is introduced by a Mr. Nicholas, of Virginia, to
the master, leaves him in command, and, from that time to the
present does not give him one order, nor writes a single letter to
him. If we could suppose it possible, that there was no
correspondence between them from 31 July, 1812, when the ship was
purchased, to 22 December, when she was chartered to Platzman &
Gosler, at least he would have written at that time and enclosed
the master a copy of the charter party and a letter of instructions
to regulate his conduct in the distant and perilous voyage on which
he was about to enter. But we find La French without one scrap of
instruction from the supposed owner, and in all things yielding
implicit obedience to the supposed agent of Platzman & Gosler,
whose interests might very well have been in many things
inconsistent with those of the charterer. And what is not less
remarkable, although he acknowledges that he must have been
eighteen months or two years master of the same ship prior to the
sale to Meyer, we find nothing about him or the vessel by which we
can discover who the former owner was, and when he is asked who
executed the bill of sale to Meyer, his reply is he does not know,
thus leading fairly to a conclusion that reasons exist now, and
existed formerly, for rendering such a correspondence either
unnecessary or unsafe to accompany the ship. As to Platzman &
Gosler, the same observation is strikingly applicable to them. From
the moment they launch their bark upon the ocean, she becomes, as
to them,
Page 14 U. S. 421
a perfect derelict. Not one anxious inquiry, not one expression
of feeling is communicated by letter to their agent in London.
Such, at least, we have a right to infer from the nonproduction of
any such correspondence upon the order for further proof. And upon
the supposition of the fairness of this transaction, the existence
of letters to prove it fair was unavoidable, for the letter of 22
December expressly calls for correspondence prior to that date and
having relation to this adventure. Beside that, as difficulties
thickened upon the adventure in Pensacola, bills on bills were
drawn upon the British house, and letters on letters sent under
cover to them, it would have followed that communications would be
made to the Russian house and bills drawn for reimbursement. But
over all this there rests an ominous silence.
Nor is there any intrinsic skill in the machinery of this
transaction. It can neither claim the praise of genius in its
invention nor of skillful execution in the adaptation of its parts.
The very inception of it is laid in a bungling artifice that would
not cheat a novice in the arts of commercial evasion. It bears, on
the face of it, the record of its own conviction, and confesses
itself to be what it was intended to be -- nothing but a neutral
cloak. The correspondents, Simpson & Co., to whom the letter of
22 December is addressed, are expressly instructed to attach that
letter to the invoice and bill of lading in order to support the
Russian national character. This, of itself, is conclusive to show
that this evidence constituted no part of the mercantile
transaction
Page 14 U. S. 422
between the parties. For when was it ever heard of that a letter
which contains in it the whole evidence upon which a correspondent
purchases, advances, and negotiates to a great amount is thus to be
thrown to the winds or returned to the hands of him who is
interested in suppressing it?
And every step that we advance in the progress of this
transaction we find new light breaking in upon us to make manifest
its real characteristics. The letter itself in which the whole
adventure originates bears on the face of it obvious symptoms of
that over anxiety which never fails to accompany a conscience ill
at ease. In a letter to a man to whom such facts must have been
wholly indifferent, it brings together into one view a number of
facts to which the English merchants (at least) know that courts of
admiralty are in the habit of attaching importance in deciding on
questions of fraud or belligerent rights, as for instance to show
that the ship had been previously engaged in neutral trade, they
say, "After the discharge of a cargo of Russian produce at this
port." And that it may appear that this adventure had not recently
originated, they say "Our friends, Messrs. A. Glennie, Son &
Co., with whom we have some time corresponded on this subject,"
&c. This letter, which is all-important to the decision of the
cause, calls forth some more remarks. It contains a singular
congery of powers, instructions, and facts. It is the only evidence
we have that the vessel ever was chartered for this voyage. The
only article of instructions of Meyer is to be found here; the only
evidence of the right of A. Glennie & Co.
Page 14 U. S. 423
to act for Platzman & Gosler is contained in it. Nor is
there anything else that would have directed the house of Simpson
& Co. in their transactions, had that house been in existence
when the vessel arrived at Pensacola.
It may well be asked would A. Glennie & Co. have been
satisfied to part with so important a voucher for their
transactions as agents in this large adventure, had there been
anything real in it? Or would so many persons have been satisfied
to stake their fortunes on this itinerant document, which was to
give its light and pass on, perhaps never to return again? But if
it did not bear upon the face of it such palpable marks of its
fictitious character, the conduct of the several persons who
affected to be governed by it would sufficiently show that it was a
paper of no authority. It is to be remarked that on some points,
this letter of 22 December, in which alone Platzman & Gosler
appear in a tangible form, is explicit and positive. On others it
yields unbounded discretion to A. Glennie & Co. to instruct
Simpson & Co., to whom it is directed, in his conduct in that
agency. With regard to two things, it yields no discretion. First
as to the article which is to be purchased, which is expressly
limited to cotton. Secondly as to the homeward destination of the
ship and cargo, which is exclusively to Gottenburgh. Yet we find
that on 22 February and 3 March, 1813, A. Glennie & Co. give
Smith instructions authorizing a deviation from the orders of their
principal not only as to the articles of which the cargo might
consist, but as to the voyage from New Orleans,
Page 14 U. S. 424
empowering him even to charter the vessel and limiting him in
the purchase of cotton to the price of eight cents, when Platzman
& Gosler prescribe no limits, and, in fine, taking the power,
both as to vessel and cargo, out of the hands of Simpson & Co.,
to whom the letter of Platzman & Gosler is directed, and
placing the adventure altogether under the control of Smith, a man
whom they appoint, for aught we know, without any authority from
their principal, and whose presence was altogether unnecessary,
under the supposition that Platzman & Gosler had really
addressed themselves to Simpson & Co., to load the vessel on
their account.
But this is not all; in every step of this transaction the
parties betray a consciousness of the necessity of artifice, and in
every attempt to resort to it betray more of a disposition than a
talent for fraud. Well aware that it is necessary to keep up a
correspondence with the supposed neutral, Smith resorts to a method
in which he supposes he may covertly correspond with the English
house, while he keeps up the appearance of corresponding with the
neutral claimant. We find a most minute detail of all his
transactions, and the events of the voyage contained in a series of
letters directed to Platzman & Gosler, but uniformly
transmitted open, and under cover to the persons really to be
informed -- the hostile house. This is a shallow artifice. The
belligerent must be fatuous who could be duped by it. And,
unfortunately for the claimants, the letters, on the face of them,
contain evidence to prove for whom they were really intended.
Strike out the names of
Page 14 U. S. 425
Platzman & Gosler and insert that of A. Glennie & Co.
and they will be found to be written with a view to satisfy several
passages in his general letter of instructions of 2 February, from
A. Glennie & Co.
This affected correspondence with Platzman & Gosler
commences on 24 May, 1813, and in the letter of that date and that
of 5 June following, there are very striking proofs of the nature
and views of that correspondence. In the letter of 25 December,
1813, which may be called the magna charta of this adventure, it
will be recollected Platzman & Gosler are made to say that as
they live in so remote a place as St. Petersburg, Simpson must
receive his instructions about the cargo of cotton altogether from
A. Glennie & Co., and in the letters of 2 February and 5 March
above referred to, Smith receives his instructions altogether from
A. Glennie & Co., and yet when he writes to Platzman &
Gosler on 24 May and announces his intended voyage to Liverpool (in
express violation of their orders), he adds, "There I shall hope to
receive your instructions about the disposal of the cargo." This to
the London house of A. Glennie & Co. was perfectly
intelligible. It will also be recollected that in the letters from
A. Glennie & Co. of 2 February, Smith is expressly instructed
to communicate all necessary information so as to govern them in
making insurance, and yet in these letters to Platzman & Gosler
he affectedly observes that he sends them open to A. Glennie &
Co. in order to direct their conduct
Page 14 U. S. 426
in case Platzman & Gosler should have instructed them to
make insurance. When to all these considerations we add that this
adventure in fact originates in a hostile country and never appears
to look to any other termination, and that the funds on which it
was projected were altogether English, we are satisfied that the
ship, and the 200 bales of cotton, laden professedly on account of
Platzman & Gosler, are not owned as claimed. With regard to the
ship some additional reasons might be urged, but the foregoing, as
applying to that whole claim, we deem sufficient.
With regard to the claim of Inerarity, the question there rests
between positive swearing and irreconcilable circumstances. And it
is a melancholy truth that forces itself upon the observation of
everyone who is conversant with courts of admiralty that positive
oaths are too often the most unsatisfactory evidence that can be
resorted to. A species of casuistry or moral sophistry seems to
have acquired too great an ascendancy over the witnesses who
sometimes appear in those courts.
With regard to the logwood, nothing can be said against it
except that we find it in bad company. There is no evidence in the
case which can induce a belief that it belonged to anyone but
Inerarity. Not so with the cotton; except in his own oath and in
the invoice, he is nowhere recognized among the acting parties as
owner of this cargo. The evidence of an invoice on such a subject
is literally reduced to nothing in the prize courts, and his own
affidavit will be considered in due time. We will inquire into
Page 14 U. S. 427
the circumstances which involve him in suspicion, and see how
these circumstances are explained.
It is in evidence that on the arrival of Smith at Pensacola and
his ascertaining the impracticability of loading the ship on
account of his owners, at the limited price, Inerarity himself
advised him, as he says, in his letter of 24 May, to go to New
Orleans for the purpose of endeavoring to obtain freight. From this
it is evident that at that time he had no intention to embark in a
shipment of cotton. The opportunity of securing this vessel at such
a time would otherwise have been eagerly caught at. On going to New
Orleans, Smith falls in with Milne, who finally ships the whole of
this parcel of cotton through Inerarity.
The bills of lading and invoice are made out to Inerarity, but
Milne transmits the cotton to him, not generally, but expressly to
be laden on board this ship. In all this transaction, Milne is the
real
dux facti. He procures the cargo, for which Smith
pays him a commission; he transmits the cotton; Inerarity never
appears but as the agent of Milne. And when Smith speaks of the
shipper, which he often does in his letters to La French, he speaks
of him as Inerarity's friend.
But it is contended that by this expression we are to understand
Inerarity himself; that he was the neutral Spaniard spoken of as
the shipper in Smith's letters to Platzman & Gosler, and as no
other shipper appears in the case but Inerarity's friend, and
Inerarity himself, they must mean the same person. This idea is
ingeniously taken up from an expression
Page 14 U. S. 428
in Smith's answer of 12 October to Inerarity's letter of the 6th
relative to the damage done to the cotton by water, in which letter
Smith says, "As a shipper on board the
St. Nicholas, my
wish is to give you every satisfaction," &c. And in several of
the letters to Platzman & Gosler he speaks of the shipper as a
Spaniard and neutral. But as it was evidently a part of the
original arrangement that this cotton should be shipped in the name
of Inerarity, who was a neutral Spaniard, the expressions in both
those letters are satisfied by this consideration. And if we then
take Milne as Inerarity styles him in the letter of October 6, "his
friend" at New Orleans, everything becomes intelligible. Inerarity
is the neutral Spaniard in whose name the cotton is shipped, and
Milne his friend at New Orleans, with whom Smith makes his
agreement about taking the cotton. It is to be remarked that the
letter of Inerarity of 6 October, and Smith's answer, and the
letters of Smith to Platzman & Gosler, were intended to see the
light. The two former, as the inception of or the ground of defense
to a legal investigation, the latter, if necessary, to prove a
legal character. It was necessary, therefore, for all the
characters to assume their respective disguises. No one can believe
that when Smith was at New Orleans urging the shipment of the
cargo, every day making some new arrangement with the shipper and
writing to La French, in consequence of those agreements, to
receive certain quantities of cotton from Inerarity, then at
Pensacola, that he could have confounded Inerarity and his friend
so very often
Page 14 U. S. 429
as he does, at the same moment when he is distinguishing them,
not only in words, but in acts.
Another circumstance attaching no small suspicion to this claim
is the connection which the evidence makes out between the shipment
by Milne and one Ralston, who appears on the stage about the time
when the vessel first sailed. We do not mean here to attach any
importance to the evidence of Dayton. It was utterly disregarded in
the court below, and meets with the same fate here. We do not
consider it at all necessary to the case. But that Ralston was the
person for whom Smith requests La French to provide as a passenger,
and an only passenger, is proved by the fact of his being the only
passenger on board when the vessel sailed. This person, Smith says,
was to have charge of the invoices, and this person must be
presumed to have been an American, as we find him at large in the
country in a time of war. Whether American or Englishman is
immaterial to the decision of this Court. Smith swears, indeed,
that he had no connection with the cargo; but Smith himself
furnishes the evidence in his letter and testimony to prove the
contrary. Upon the whole, when the above considerations are taken
in conjunction with this, that it is hardly possible to assign a
reason why Inerarity should not have appeared openly in purchasing
and transmitting this cargo at New Orleans, they cannot but so load
his claim with suspicion as to make it a case for condemnation
unless he can furnish some satisfactory explanation on the
subject.
Page 14 U. S. 430
But what is the explanation? This leads us to the consideration
of the affidavits. And here it is, with extreme regret, that we are
called upon to declare that we can attach no credence to them.
Inerarity has forfeited his claim to the respect of this Court by
taking an oath to a fact which might, indeed, by possibility, have
been true, but which he could not have known to be true. He has
sworn that this parcel of cotton, so clearly proved to have been
purchased at New Orleans, was of Spanish origin. This is a part of
the machinery, an authenticating document, and its foulness
communicates a taint to the residue. But his test affidavit bears,
upon the face of it, another proof that he is an incautious
swearer. For he testifies, with the same confidence that he does of
his own claim, that the two hundred bales shipped for Platzman
& Gosler were their absolute property. The testimony of some
other witnesses is offered in evidence, all subject to the same
objection that they swear with similar confidence to a fact that
they can know nothing of positively. These affidavits, together
with several tending to discredit the testimony of Dayton and one
from Mr. Jenner, of the house of Eason, Jenner & Co.,
constitute all the evidence brought in upon the order for further
proof. The affidavit of Jenner goes to negative the interest in the
house of Eason, Jenner & Co. It also goes to prove that his
house believed Inerarity to be the sole proprietor of this
shipment. But what are we to think of the discretion of this
witness also, who undertakes to swear in terms the most positive
that A. Glennie & Co. had no interest
Page 14 U. S. 431
in this shipment? The case indeed furnishes no reason to believe
they had, but on what ground can this witness undertake to deny
positively a fact which, with him, could only rest on belief? In
none of these affidavits is there anything to negative the probable
American interest which the evidence makes out. And can there be a
pretext for contending that Inerarity could resort to no other
evidence to satisfy this Court of the fairness of his claim? Where
is his correspondence with Milne? What was to have prevented him
from showing how he bought and paid for this cotton? His accounts
current with his agents or factors might have thrown great light
upon this transaction. He has had ample time to do this, and the
practice of the Court, not less than our strong conviction that he
never can vindicate his claim, must now oblige us to shut the door
upon him.
The logwood must share the fate of the cotton, blended in the
same claim. This we consider as the positive law of the admiralty,
and although highly penal, is not without its beneficial effects in
deterring neutrals from attempting frauds upon belligerent rights.
*
Page 14 U. S. 432
Sentence as to the ship reversed; affirmed as to the cargo,
except the logwood, which was condemned.
*
Vide 2 Rob. 1.
The Eenroom, id., 154;
The Calypso, 3 Rob. 111;
The Graaf Bernstorff. So
also, in the courts of municipal law it is held that property
insured and warranted to be neutral must not only have every
document necessary according to treaties and the law of nations to
prove its neutrality, but it must not be accompanied with any
papers that compromit its neutral character. It is a maxim that
neutral commerce is to be conducted with good faith towards
belligerents. Their rights are to be respected as well as those of
neutral nations. It is not sufficient that a part only, but the
whole property covered by the policy must be neutral. And if a
cover is attempted for enemy's property by an intermixture with
neutral, it is held to subject the whole to confiscation. 1 Caines
565;
Blagge v. N.Y. Ins. Co. And if the general agent of a
neutral cargo covers enemy's property in the same vessel, though
without the consent or knowledge of his principal, the property of
his principal is condemnable, notwithstanding it may be
distinguished by the papers, and the warranty of neutrality is not
fulfilled. 2 Binney 308;
The Phoenix Ins. Company. v.
Pratt.