
    THE SCHOONER GOOD INTENT. RAYMOND N. PARISH, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. MARY H. WILLIAMS, Administratrix, v. THE SAME. JOHN C. PARSONS, Administrator, v. THE SAME.
    [French Spoliations, 2430, 2001.
    Decided April 15, 1901.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    A vessel carrying an innocent cargo bound for a nonblockaded port is seized on the high seas and carried into Basse Terre. Her master and crew are imprisoned and then sent out of the country. The fact of condemnation is shown, but the decree is not produced and can not be found.
    I. Where the claimants show that the cargo was innocent, the vessel bound to a nonblockaded port, and that the master was prevented by imprisonment from defending his owners, a case prima facie of illegal condemnation is made out, and the burden is on the belligerent government to produce the decree and justify the condemnation.
    II. In prize courts the owners have a right to defend their property, to show facts which will establish the illegality of the seizure. If they are deprived of that right the condemnation is illegal. .
    
      The Reporters' statement of the case:
    The following are the facts of this case as found by the court:
    I. The schooner Good Intent, Hazard Powers, master, sailed on a commercial voyage January 14, 1800, from New London, Conn., bound for Martinique. While peacefully pursuing said voyage the vessel was seized on the high seas on the 28th of February, 1800, in latitude 15 north, longitude 59 west, by the French privateer L’Unique, Captain Jour-mard, and taken to Basse Terre, island of Guadeloupe, and was, with the cargo, there condemned. The decree of condemnation has not been produced by either party and can not be found in the archives of the French Government.
    On arriving at the port of Basse Terre the master and crew of the vessel were imprisoned until after the condemnation of the vessel, when they were put on board a vessel carrying a flag of truce, which conveyed them to the island of St. Christopher. By the action of the French authorities the master and owners of the vessel and cargo were prevented from appearing before the prize court and of defending the rights of the owners against the claim of the captors; and it does not appear that the master or the owners were in any way represented before said prize court or given an opportunity to be heal'd.
    II. The Good Intent was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 80ff tons burden; was built in the State of North Carolina in the year 1186, enlarged in the year 1797, and was owned by Joshua Raymond and Christopher Raymond in equal shares.
    III. The cargo of the Good Intent at the time of said capture consisted of lumber, staves, shooks, potatoes, beans, and beef, and was owned by said Joshua and Christopher Raymond in equal shares.
    Part of the cargo had been lost overboard prior to the capture of the vessel.
    IV. The losses by reason of the capture of the Good Intent were as follows:
    The value of the vessel. §2,415.00
    The freight earnings on the cargo captured. 447.00
    The value of the cargo captured. 884.00
    Premium of insurance paid on vessel.. 125.00
    Amounting in all to. 3,871.00
    Y. The losses to the different claimants by reason of said capture and condemnation were as follows: ’
    JOSHUA RAYMOND.
    One-half value of the vessel. §1,207.50
    One-half freight earnings. 223.50
    One-half value of cargo at time of capture. 442.00
    Amounting in all to. 1,873.00
    CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND.
    One-half value of vessel. 1,207.50
    One-half freight earnings. 223.50
    One-half value of cargo at time of capture . 442.00
    Premium of insurance paid on vessel. 125.00
    Amounting in all to. 1, 998.00
    Less insurance received. 1, 000. 00
    Leaving net loss to him of. 998; 00
    
      YI. By a policy of insurance dated January 15, 1800, Christopher Raymond insured his portion of the vessel, through sundry underwriters, in the sum of $1,000, paying therefor a premium of $125.
    Thereafter said Christopher Raymond was paid the sum of $1,000, as and for a total loss on'said policy.
    'Ezekiel Williams and John Caldwell are the only underwriters on said policy who have appeared in this claim, and the amounts they underwrote'on the vessel were as follows:
    Ezekiel Williams.i. §100
    John Caldwell. 250
    VII. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration on the estates of Joshua Raymond and Christopher Raymond, and Ezekiel Williams and John Caldwell, respectively, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons whom they represent are the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Good Intent.
    Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, were not claims growing out of the acts of France, allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d of February, 1819,- and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831.
    The claimants, in their respective capacities, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned, except as aforesaid.
    
      Mr. John W. Butterfield for the claimants.
    
      Mr. Charles W. Bussell (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney- General Pradt) for the defendants.
   Nott, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case presents a peculiar combination of circumstances. On the one hand, it appears by the protest of the master of the ship that on the 28th of February, 1800, the schooner, carrying an innocent cargo and bound for a nonblockaded port, was seized on the high seas, in latitude 15° north, longitude 59° west; that she was carried into Basse Terre, where the master and crew were imprisoned until the 7th of March, when he, with his crew, was put on board a vessel bearing a flag of truce, which carried them to the island of St. Christopher. On the other hand, the decree of condemnation has not been produced by either party and can not be found in the archives of the French Government.

Upon this state of facts we think it evident that if an international tribunal had been sitting at the time contemporaneous with the treaty of 1800 it would have been held that the protest made out a case prima facie, and that it was incumbent upon the French Government to produce the decree or other evidence to justify the seizure and explain why the master was deprived of the right of appearing before the prize court and, as the agent of the owners, presenting their defense.

In prize courts, as in all other tribunals, the party whose rights are attacked is entitled to a hearing In this case, as in all others, the owners of this schooner had a right to make defense in the proceedings against their property. If the seizure of the vessel was illegal, they had a right to show such facts as would have established the illegality; if the condemnation could not have been justified when facts which possibly they might have shown were shown, they were legally entitled to present those facts to the court.

The condemnation, therefore, upon this record, must be deemed illegal, and the case will be so reported to Congress, together with a copy of this opinion.  