Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/30

24

from the shippers, collectively taken prove the Ship to be the property of Brantlight & Son, subjects of the States General, at the port of Amsterdam, and the cargo to be the property of British capitulants, residing or owning estates in the Island of Dominica, and entitled to the rights of commerce according to the capitulation on the conquest of the Island; except with regard to such parts of the cargo as were shipt [sic] by Morson, & Co. Morson, Vance & Co. and Lovel, Morson & Co.

It lies then on the captors to obviate the force of this evidence: It must be obviated, or an acquittal must be decreed, to the full extent of the evidence.

The papers have been taken up by the Counsel for the captors and separately and distinctly considered, and it is said they do not prove the facts to which they are adduced. It is true, separately considered, they do not; but collectively taken, we think they do, except in the instances we have mentioned.

Many objections have been made to obviate the force of this presumptive evidence: The objections go to the competency of many of the papers, and to the credibility of all. “The certificates of the Chief Justice, it is said, ought not to be admitted as legal and competent evidence; for the Chief Justice is a British Judge of the Island of Dominica, and an enemy.”

We do not think the Chief Justice on that Island, reduced as it is by conquest, can with propriety be called a British Judge and an enemy. But whether he derives his commission originally from the Crown, and still holds it under the articles of capitulation, and so far is a British judge, or not, he must certainly be subject to removal by the French government; and it highly derogates from the honor and dignity of the French Crown, and too deeply affects the zeal and loyalty of Governor Duchilot, to admit the supposition, that a man is suffered to fill so important an office, who publicly prostitutes his official character from a partiality to the British nation.

The Chief Justice gave his certificates officially and under the obligation of an oath: We must want charity indeed, if, under these circumstances, we were to say, that they have not even the force of presumptive evidence.

But the competency of this evidence, so far as it is adduced to prove the owners or shippers of the cargo British capitulants, is objected to, on another ground. It is said; “These certificates are not the best evidence the nature of the case will admit, and which the party has in his power to produce: An attested copy of the articles of capitulation, and the names subscribed, ought to have been produced.”

This principle of evidence applies forcibly against the captors, but does not affect the claimants. The articles of capitulation bind Great Britain, France and America. It is a solemn pact