What is probable cause of seizure and bringing into port.
The right of a belligerent cruiser of seizing upon the high seas
and bringing in a vessel for further examination does not authorize
or excuse any spoliation or damage done to the property, and the
captors proceed at their peril, and are liable for all the
consequent injury and loss.
The owners of a privateer are responsible for the conduct of
their agents, the officers and crew, to all the world, and the
measure of such responsibility is the full value of the property
injured or destroyed.
A libel was filed in the District Court of South Carolina by the
defendant in error against Del Col and others, the owners of a
French privateer called
La Montagne, and of the ship
Industry and her cargo, a prize to the privateer, lying in
the harbor of Charleston, which the libellant had caused to be
attached. The case appeared to be briefly this:
The privateer had captured as prize on the high seas an American
brig called the
Grand Sachem, commanded by Ebenezer
Baldwin and owned by the defendant in error. At the time of taking
possession of the brig, a sum of $9,993 was removed from her into
the privateer, a prize master and several mariners were put on
board of her, and they were directed to steer for Charleston. Just,
however, as they hove in sight of the lighthouse, the
Terpsichore, a British frigate, captured the privateer and
gave chase to the prize, whereupon the prize master run her into
shoal water, and there she was abandoned by all on board except a
sailor originally belonging to her crew, and a passenger. In a
short time, she drove on shore, was scuttled and plundered. When
the marshal came with process against the brig, she was in the
joint possession of the custom house Officers and the privateer's
men; the latter of whom prevented the execution of the process. The
Industry and her cargo were then attached by the
libellant, and an agreement was entered into between the parties
that they should be sold and the proceeds paid into court to abide
the issue of the suit.
On the evidence, it appeared that the
Grand Sachem had
been engaged in a smuggling trade at New Orleans, the Spanish Main,
etc., and for the purpose of carrying it on, she had procured a
register in the name of a Spanish subject and sailed under Spanish
colors. Besides other suspicious circumstances, she had on board,
at the time of her capture, a variety of accounts
Page 3 U. S. 334
describing her as Spanish property, and a trunk containing her
papers (among which, it was alleged, there was a Spanish register)
had been collusively delivered up to the owner, the defendant in
error, by one of the sailors. The money removed from her and taken
in the privateer by the British frigate had been condemned in
Jamaica.
The district court pronounced a decree in favor of the libellant
for the sum of $33,329.87 (the full value of the
Grand
Sachem, and her cargo) with interest at 10 percent from 8
August, 1795, the day of capture; declared "that the proceeds of
the ship
Industry and her cargo, attached in this cause,
be held answerable to that amount," and directed that the defendant
in error should enter into a stipulation to account to the
plaintiffs in error for the money condemned as prize to the British
frigate, or any part of it that he might recover, as neutral
property. This decree was affirmed in the circuit court, and
thereupon the present writ of error was instituted.
The case was considered in four points of view:
1st. Whether there was sufficient probable cause for seizing and
bringing the
Grand Sachem into port for further
examination, and adjudication?
2d. Whether, if there was such sufficient cause, the captors
can, at all, be made liable for the consequent injury and loss?
3d. Whether if the immediate captors, who run the vessel into
shoal water and scuttled her are responsible, that responsibility
can be devolved on the owners of the privateer, who had not
authorized or contributed to the misconduct?
And 4th. Whether the
Industry and her cargo could,
before condemnation, be attached and made liable in this suit as
the property of the captors?
The Court delivered, at different times, the following
opinions:
On the first point, that there was a sufficient probable cause
for seizing and bringing the
Grand Sachem into port.
On the second point, that the right of seizing and bringing in a
vessel for further examination, does not authorize or excuse any
spoliation or damage done to the property, but that the captors
proceed at their peril, and are liable for all the consequent
injury and loss.
On the third point, that the owners of the privateer are
responsible for the conduct of their agents the officers and
crew
Page 3 U. S. 335
to all the world, and that the measure of such responsibility is
the full value of the property injured, or destroyed.
*
On the fourth point, that whatever might originally have been
the irregularity in attaching the
Industry and her cargo,
it is completely obviated, since the captors had a power to sell
the prize, and by their own agreement they have consented that the
proceeds of the sale should abide the issue of the present
suit.
The decree of the circuit court affirmed.
* CHASE and IREDELL, JUSTICES, agreed that the owners were
responsible, but differed as to the extent, observing that the
privateer's men were justifiable in abandoning to save themselves
from captivity, but that the removal of the money into the
privateer and the subsequent scuttling of the brig were unlawful
acts.