1817. The Dos of the in the district court for Louisia of an asserted change of destination, then in prosecution of a voyage to New-Orleans. The schooner Hermanos. was delivered up, and prize proceedings were instituted against the cargo, na district. Upon the return of the monition various claims were interposed for small adventures or parts cargo; but the only questions before the court arose upon the claim of Mr. Basil Green, calling himself a citizen of the Republic of Carthagena, who, by his agents, Mr. John F. Miller and Messrs. Lewis & Lee, asserted an ownership to nearly the whole of the cargo. Mr. Miller, in his affidavit annexed to the claim, states, "that he purchased the goods so claimed, with moneys in his hands belonging to the claimant; that at the time of the purchase, he expected to have had an interest therein, but that on his arrival at New-Orleans, the attorney in fact of the said claimant (meaning Mr. Lewis) refused to allow any such interest, and the deponent is therefore obliged to give up the same; and this deponent further saith, that the facts contained in the said claim are true to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief." At the hearing in the district court, the claim was rejected, and the goods were condemned as the property of enemies, or of citizens trading with the enemies of the United States. Feb. 11th. Mr. Harper, for the appellant and claimant, argued, upon the facts, that the proprietary interest in the cargo was in the claimant, and that he (though a native citizen) had a right to change his domicil, and did change it bona fide to Carthagena, in South Ame rica, where he was a resident merchant, and in his neutral character had a right to trade with the ene 1817. The Dos my of his native country." He further suggested Hermanos. that the captor was not duly authorized to capture, there being no evidence that the armed barge, which made the capture, was duly incorporated into the navy." Mr. Key, contra, argued that the residence of the claimant at Carthagena was temporary only, and that the whole transaction was infected with fraud and falsehood. Mr. Justice STORY delivered the opinion of the March 3d, court. Before we consider the merits of this claim it may not be unfit to advert to some of the principles applicable to proceedings in prize causes, which seem to have been wholly neglected in the progress of this cause. It is the established rule in courts of prize, that the evidence to acquit or condemn must, in the first instance, come from the papers and crew of the captured ship. On this account it is the duty of the captors, as soon as practicable, to bring the ship's papers into the registry of the district court, and to have the examinations of the principal officers and ■ 1 Wheat. 65, note (i.) b 5 Rob. 41. The Melomasne. Ib. 252. The Charlotte. Ib. note (a.) The Island of Curraçoa, &c. 1817. The Dos Hermanos. upon seamen of the captured ship taken before the district judge, or commissioners appointed by him, the standing interrogatories. It is exclusively upon these papers and the examinations, taken in preparatorio, that the cause is to be heard before the district court. If, from the whole evidence, the property clearly appear to be hostile, or neutral, condemnation or acquittal immediately follows. If, on the other hand, the property appear doubtful, or the case be clouded with suspicions or inconsistencies, it then becomes a case of farther proof, which the court will direct or deny, according to the rules which govern its legal discretion on this subject. Farther proof is not a matter of course. It is granted in cases of honest mistake or ignorance, or to clear away any doubts or defects consistent with good faith. But if the parties have been guilty of gross fraud or misconduct, or illegality, farther proof is not allowed; and under such circumstances, the parties are visited with all the fatal consequences of an original hostile character. It is essential, therefore, to the correct administration of prize law, that the regular modes of proceeding should be observed with the utmost strictness; and it is a great mistake to allow common law notions in respect to evidence or practice, to prevail in proceedings which have very little analogy to those at common law. These remarks have been drawn forth by an examination of the present record. The court could not but observe with regret that great irregularities had attended the cause in the court below. Neither were the ship's papers produced by the captors, nor 1817. The Dos the captured crew examined upon the standing interrogatories. Witnesses were produced by the libellants and the claimant indiscriminately at the trial, Hermanos. and their testimony was taken in open court upon any and all points to which the parties chose to interrogate them, and upon this testimony and the documentary proofs offered by the witnesses, the cause was heard and finally adjudged.. In fact there was nothing to distinguish the cause from an ordinary proceeding in a mere revenue cause in rem. may This court cannot but watch with considerable solicitude irregularities, which so materially impair the simplicity of prize proceedings, and the rights and duties of the parties. Some apology for them be found in the fact, that from our having been long at peace, no opportunity was afforded to learn the correct practice in prize causes. But that apology no longer exists; and if such irregularities should hereafter occur it may be proper to adopt a more rigorous course, and to withhold condemnation in the clearest cases, unless such irregularities are avoided or explained. In the present case the first fault was that of the captors; and if the claimant had suffered any prejudice from it, this court would certainly restore to him every practicable benefit. But in fact no such prejudice has arisen. The claimant has had, in the court below, the indulgence and benefit of farther proof and of collateral aids to verify the truth of his claim; and he stands at least upon as favourable a ground to sustain it as if the cause had been conducted with the most scrupulous form. Two questions have been argued at the bar. First, 1817. The Dos whether Mr. Basil Green, the asserted owner, has established his proprietary interest in the goods in Hermanos. question; and secondly, supposing this point decided in his favour, whether he has proved himself a neutral merchant, entitled by his domicil and national character to a restitution of the property. It appears by the evidence in the case that Mr. Green was born in Maryland, and resided in that state, and principally at Baltimore, until the year 1809, when he went abroad. In 1811 he resided in Carthagena; and in the spring of 1813, he came to New-Orleans from Carthagena, in a schooner under Carthagenian colours, and being unable to sell her, he determined, in connexion with Messrs. John F. Miller, Lewis & Lee, and others, inhabitants of New-Orleans, who became jointly interested with him, to fit her out as an American privateer. Accordingly, on or about the 13th of March, 1813, Mr. Green applied to the collector of the customs at NewOrleans for a commission; and in his petition he described her as the private armed schooner Hornet, of New-Orleans, owned by Basil Green, The commision was granted, and soon afterwards Mr. Green sailed in the privateer on her destined cruise. In June, 1813, he was, as he alleges, compelled by a mutiny of the crew to go to Carthagena, where they deserted, and the cruise was broken up, and the privateer was finally sold; of all which he gave information to the other owners at New-Orleans, and promised to remit their proportions of the proceeds. While at New-Orleans in April, 1813, Mr. Green executed a letter of attorney, appointing Messrs. Lewis |