Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/37

Rh

 enclosed to Waterburgh, contained a full communication of it.

“But the papers, it is said, found on board the Eustin, throw great light upon the subject; they pluck off the mask, and exhibit Mason in his proper colours; they prove, that an illicit commerce has taken place, and that the articles of capitulation have been repeatedly violated.”

Admit, for argument sake, the fact, that the Eustin was engaged in an illicit commerce, how can the conduct of the Eustin affect the Resolution?

But what is this illicit commerce, which is charged to have taken place? Let it be ascertained, and we shall find, it cannot possibly apply to the Resolution.

“British goods, it is said, have been shipt from London, to Dominica, thro’ the intervention of neutral ports.” Can this species of illicit commerce apply to the Resolution? It is impossible; for she was never engaged in this Dominica trade, till after her arrival at Eustatia, early in 1780; and from thence she sailed to Dominica, where she lay, till the rupture between Great Britain and Holland took place; nor were Brantlight and Son ever engaged in such a commerce for Morson and Co’s letter, of the 6th March 1781, after the rupture, speaks of this house, as a new house, with which the people of Dominica were unacquainted; and mentions the difficulties he had, from that circumstance, to procure consignments.

“But the papers, it is said, of the Eustin prove that the produce of Dominica has been exported to London, through the intervention of neutral ports.”

Was the Resolution ever engaged in this species of illicit commerce? The peculiar circumstances of her case shew, that she never was. The rupture with Holland took place while she lay at Dominica; it stopped all shipments. On the arrival of the British proclamation, protecting Holland vessels, for a limited time, on their passage back, shipments went on; but the protection, which the proclamation gave, ceased on the arrival of Holland vessels back to their ports in Holland.

What ground then is there to think, that the Resolution, with her cargo, were destined, after her arrival at Amsterdam, to proceed to London, where both ship and cargo, would have been liable, after her departure from Amsterdam, not only to British capture; but, as contended by the counsel for the captors, liable also to Dutch capture, war prohibiting all commerce between the belligerent powers; and not only liable to British and Dutch capture; but, as the law of nations has been stated by the counsel of the captors, liable also to French, Spanish and American capture?

“But the papers, it is said, of the Eustin, prove that Morson and Mason, who planned the voyage of the Resolution, “ also