been transmitted to the principal officers of government. Lest, however, any thing should be wanting to a complete vindication of the courts and officers of justice, as far as I was personally concerned, and in deference to the request contained in your letter of the 10th instant, I shall briefly recapitulate the circumstances attending the several suits against the privateer, with the particular reasons that influenced my conduct as prosecutor for the publick. I trust that the detail will fully confirm not only the purity of those motives by which I was actuated, but also the propriety of the measures which I thought it right to

pursue.

About the latter end of June, or beginning of July, 1795, the privateer La Vengeance arrived with a valuable prize, in the harbour of New York, at a time when I was absent from the state, upon a tour to the eastward for the recovery of my health. Upon the 2d of July, if I am rightly informed, a suit was commenced on the admiralty side of the district court, by the Spanish consul, on behalf of the original owner of the prize, upon an allegation that the privateer had been fitted out in the United States. This cause was commenced in my absence, by the advice of colonel Hamilton and Mr. Troup. I had no participation. in the business, nor any knowledge of it;-though, if I had been applied to, I should not have thought it incompatible with my station to have been originally concerned for the libellant; as the free exercise of profession in all causes where the United States are not parties, belongs to the district attorneys. Before my return to New York, the cause had already made some progress; the libel was filed, the prize arrested, and a claim, I think, instituted by captain Berard on behalf of one Jacques Rouge, whom he alleged to be the owner of the privateer. Mr. Adet's insinuation, therefore, that the prize was arrested in consequence of any exertion or appearance of mine, is totally unfounded, and to be classed with the other groundless reproaches by which his note is distinguished.

Upon my return the consul of the king of Spain, at New York, complained to me in my official capacity, of a violation of law on the part c the privateer, in consequence of which a Spanish subject had been injured. This complaint was entitled to attention, both from its own nature and the situation of the complainant. I could be under

no improper bias from any connexion with the prize cause, even if I was capable of being so biassed; because, at that time, I had no concern in it; and therefore Mr. Adet's observation that I acted "without laying aside my office of attorney for the captured" is equally unfounded with the one above noticed.

Upon making the inquiries which I supposed requisite, I found at least a probability that the complaint respecting the privateer was true. This probability arose from what I considered as affording the certainty of material proof: and therefore, in conformity with my duty, I commenced a prosecution grounded upon the statute, prohibiting the arming of privateers in our ports. In the course of proceeding against the privateer, it was manifest, that the cause of the United States and that against the prize were substantially the same, and it was agreed that the evidence taken in the one cause should be used in both. After some time, colonel Hamilton's numerous engagements rendered it impracticable for him to attend constantly to the examination of witnesses, and as questions arose with respect to the cause against the prize, which did not emerge in that of the privateer, I was engaged to assist as counsel in the prize cause, continuing alone as to every thing that respected the publick prosecution. This I may aver to have been carried on with the utmost fairness on the part of the United States, and no methods whatever were employed to delay the decision, which however was necessarily retarded, in part by the time consumed in examining the numerous witnesses produced on behalf of the claimants, and in part, by the calamitous situation of New York at that period. Perhaps, too, there never were causes in which more contradictory and irre concileable evidence was offered, and in which the minds of the auditors were more divided as to the real state of facts. The judge of the district took a considerable time to examine the evidence and form his opinion, and though his decision was in favour of the claimants, yet he expressly declared that there was probable cause for the seizure, which has ever been considered as sufficient to justify a prosecution on the part of the publick, and I believe that whoever will examine the mass of jarring evidence that was taken upon this occasion, will accord in that opinion, though he may think that under all the cir

VOL. II.

49

cumstances, the facts were too doubtful to warrant a condemnation. To the judge's sentence upon this prosecution, I thought it reasonable to submit on the part of the publick, and as one of the counsel in the prize cause I united with my associates in recommending the like submission in that cause also. These are all the observations which I think it can be proper to make with respect to the first cause commenced against the privateer.

With respect to the second prosecution, which Mr. Adet says, "is principally in question," the facts are these. During the course of the examinations in the first cause against the privateer, it appeared that a quantity of arms and ammunition had actually been exported in her from the United States at a time when such exportation was prohibited, and though I had been led to suppose from some of the testimony, that these had formed a part of the privateer's equipment, yet as this was contested, I thought it my duty to file another libel or information, stating the exportation as a breach of the prohibitory law. Mr. Adet is pleased to say, that "this information was made upon the simple declaration of Mr. Giles, marshal of the court, who as informer was to have his part of the confiscation." In the first part of this assertion, Mr. Adet is certainly mistaken. The information was founded upon the evidence appearing in the other causes, not upon any declaration made by Mr. Giles; and as Mr. Giles was not the informer, but merely the seizing officer, I do not know that he would have been entitled to any share of the property if confiscated.

After the filing of the second information, it is remarkable that captain Berard (who could best have contradicted the allegations contained in it, if they were not true) does not appear to claim upon oath, as in the other causes; but this task is devolved upon the French consul, who could only speak from information.

In the progress of the cause, however, the exportation of cannon is denied; the muskets attempted at one time to be made fowling pieces, and at another the property of passengers; and the powder, with some ball which accompanied it, is alleged to have been part of the equipment of a French frigate, and to have been afterwards replaced; but without explaining whence or in what manner the supply to the frigate was obtained.

Under these circumstances, the judge of the district pronounced sentence of condemnation against the privateer, founding his decree upon the exportation of the muskets, but without giving any direct opinion as to the powder, which in my judgment formed the most important and serious question in the cause; because, if foreign vessels of war might supply the ships or colonies of their nation with ammunition, from their equipments, and again replace the same, probably by purchases within the United States, every prudent and necessary precaution to preserve among us the means of defence, might at the pleasure of foreigners be rendered abortive.

The sentence of the district court in this cause having been pronounced, an appeal, as stated by Mr. Adet, was interposed by the French consul at New York, and about this period a sale of the privateer took place by consent. If the parties interested suppose that this vessel would sell for no more than a "tenth part of the cost of her armament," it was optional with them to have refused their consent. I know no law of Congress such as Mr. Adet alludes to, requiring vessels to be given up upon security, under the circumstances stated. No such law was produced by the consul or his attorneys, and it would have been palpably improper, that a privateer condemned by the sentence of a court of justice, should by any act of an officer of the executive government go into the hands of one of the belligerent parties completely equipped to cruise against its enemies. Such an act would probably have been considered as a deviation from strict neutrality, and might have been productive of serious consequences.

In the month of April last the appeal in the case of the privateer came on to be heard before judge Chase, in the circuit court for the district of New York. Whatever might have been the expectations of the consul or his attorneys, they did not choose to rest their cause upon the evidence taken in the district court; but upon the first day of the hearing produced new witnesses. After these had been heard the argument was commenced for the appellant and answered on the part of the respondents; but as the judge plainly intimated his opinion for confirming the former sentence, unless further evidence could be produced to a particular point, the appellant's counsel applied for and obtained a delay of two days, and in that interval, by some

fortunate casually met with a witness, who had only been a few months at New York, and was able to remove every difficulty.

In consequence of this new evidence, judge Chase thought proper to reverse the sentence of the district court condemning the privateer; but he not only certified that there was probable cause for the prosecution, but as the innocence of the party had not been manifested in the early stages of the cause, he directed all the fees of the officers of the court to be paid by the claimant.

As this decree of the circuit court had been obtained under extraordinary circumstances, and as the question respecting the powder still appeared to me of the utmost importance, I thought it my duty to enter an appeal to the supreme court, and to prepare a state of the case, that the superior officers of government might judge whether it should be prosecuted or abandoned.

If any further information as to this cause should be deemed necessary, I must refer to the state of the case abovementioned, and which was transmitted by me to the secretary of the treasury. I have only further to observe that I am ignorant how the officers of the district court were "interested in the condemnation of the privateer or her prize." I believe that the fees of the clerk and marshal were the same, whether they were acquitted or condemned: and I am certain, that as to myself, the charges against the United States did not at all depend upon that circumstance. I hope indeed, that I shall at all times be incapable of commencing or carrying on a prosecution merely with a view to my own private emolument. I am ready at any time, to meet inquiry upon this subject, and I am satisfied that any person who in this free and enlightened country, could so far be blinded by mercenary motives as to prostitute his office for the gratification of them, would be soon removed from it with ignominy, if he should even escape any other punishment.

I have only to add, that with the highest respect, I have the honour to be, &c.

RICH. HARRISON,