Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/36

30

for it is absurd to say, that Kender Mason proceeded to ship, and Henderson did not, if what Henderson shipt was the property of Kender Mason.

But, it is objected, “that altho’ Kender Masn is mentioned in the letter, as a shipper, yet it is to be understood, that he is there described as principal to Henderson, and therefore, what was shipt by Henderson, may with propriety be said to have been shipped by Kender Mason.”

What evidence is there of such a connection between Mason and Henderson? Mason’s letters of correspondence are all addressed to Morson, and the ship is consigned to Morson and Henderson, as persons in separate and distinct interests. The idea too, of such a connection, is contradicted by the whole tenor of the papers found on board.

If Henderson was the agent or attorney for Kender Mason; if he was the person, with whom Mason was so extensively interested, in his commercial connections, then the idea of his connection with Morson & Co. Morson, Vance, & Co. and Lovel, Morson, & Co. ought to be abandoned: for, it is not to be believed, that Mason should engage in three partnerships, and yet employ an agent or attorney, who ships forty times the quantity of produce shipt by all the three partnerships.

But it is contended, “that both ship and cargo are the property of Morson and Mason, in consequence of a plan concerted at London, between Kender Mason and Henderson, agent for Brantlight & Son, while the Ship Resolution lay at Eustatius.”

We have no doubt the voyage of the Resolution was planned at London, by Kender Mason and Henderson; but the plan must have been very different from the one suggested.

One of two propositions must be true; either Morson and Mason did not purchase the ship, and ship the cargo, in consequence of the plan suggested, or Morson has sworn falsely, and committed a perjury.

Morson, the 7th March, 1781, near twelve months after the Resolution’s voyage was concerted at London, swears that the Ship Resolution, belonging to the port of Rosseau, and owned by Brantlight & Son, arrived at Dominica, Oct. 1780; for the purpose of taking on board a cargo of sugar and coffee, the property of capitulants.

This oath flatly contradicts the assertion, that the Ship was purchased; it also directly contradicts the assertion, that the plan was to ship a cargo, the property of Kender Mason; for Kender Mason is not a capitulant.

Morson’s knowledge was competent to the facts he swore: He precisely knew what the plan was that was really concerted at London; for, it is strenuously contended by the counfel for the captors, that Kender Mason, in his letter to Morson &  uysen