[83] *Mr. Davies, district attorney, to Mr. Adams, Secretary of State.
Sir: Since the last session of Congress I have, in two instances only, instituted process before the courts of the United States for the execution of the laws to enforce a due observance of the neutral obligations of the United States in the contest between Spain and the American provinces claimed by her as colonies. In both instances the vessels proceeded against were seized and detained by the United States brig Saranac, and I acted on the information of her commander, Mr. H. Elton, having in no instance had any application made to me on this subject by a Spanish consul.
[Page 480]The first was the case of the schooner Iris. This vessel, it appeared, was formerly called the Astulla, sailing under Spanish colors, and was captured on a voyage from or to the coast of Africa, by a privateer under Mexican colors. She was afterward seized and detained by one of the United States vessels of war and sent into the Port of New Orleans, where she was libeled in behalf of her Spanish owners, and restitution claimed on the ground that the Mexican privateer by which she had been captured had been equipped in the port of New Orleans. Pending the proceedings she was sold in virtue of an *interlocutory decree of the court of admiralty, and was purchased by a Mr. Duplessis, who afterward disposed of a moiety of her to a Mr. Duncan. At the time she was sent into New Orleans she had two large guns mounted on her quarter-deck, besides a quantity of powder and provisions on board, consisting of pork, flour, &c. At the time she was seized by the Saranac there were found on board, concealed in the hold, twelve or fourteen more large guns, which most of the witnesses, examined on the part of the claimant, testified were on board at the time she was sent into New Orleans; but they were not mentioned in the inventory delivered by the marshal to the purchaser, Mr. Duplessis. The other articles were mentioned, viz, the two mounted guns, the powder, and the provisions. After the purchase by Mr. Duplessis, the vessel underwent some trifling repairs and sailed from New Orleans, bound ostensibly for St. Mary’s; but it was admitted by Mr. Duplessis that his intention was to go to Amelia, if on his arrival off that place it should have been found in the possession of the patriots.” On the arrival of the vessel at the port of Funandisa, that place was in possession of General McGregor, and she was taken by the Saranac when going into that port. At the time of her sailing from New Orleans she had on board *the owner, Mr. Duplessis, the captain, and ten men before the mast, besides four other peons who were called passengers. The acting captain at the time they left New Orleans testified on the trial that he had understood from these four men that they held commissions in the “patriot” service, and were going to Amelia to be employed. One of them acted as mate during the voyage, and one other testified that before the vessel sailed it was agreed between Duplessis and himself that he should have the command as soon as they were at sea; that he did accordingly take the command a short time after sailing; and that he would have taken the command at New Orleans, but, holding a commission in the patriot service and disclaiming to be an American citizen, he could not clear the vessel. This man also testified that it was understood between Duplessis and himself that he should become the purchaser of the vessel on her arrival at Amelia or St. Mary’s, and Duplessis alleged in his answer that it was his intention to make sale of her on his arrival at either of these places. The log-book was very imperfect, containing the occurrences of but a part of the voyage. On one day, according to the log-book, a vessel was discovered and all sail was made in chase; this latter remark was obliterated, *and all the witnesses swore that no such circumstance occurred, but that, on the contrary, they avoided all vessels that they could during the voyage. The libel against the vessel was founded upon the act of March, 1817. She was acquitted before the district court, but condemned before the circuit court. [84] [85] [86]
The other is the case of the Hornet. This vessel was formerly an American privateer called the Traveller. Some time in the course of the past year she was fitted and equipped as a privateer in the Delaware. [Page 481] Her men, (according to the testimony,) together with her equipments, were shipped and procured at Philadelphia, and sent down to the vessel in oyster-boats and other small craft. Four or five days after sailing the name Traveller was obliterated and she assumed the name of Hornet and hoisted the colors of Sir George McGregor, and commenced her cruise. During the cruise the men mutinied, and, while in this state, the vessel was taken possession of by Captain Elton, on the St. Mary’s station, and sent in. There was a condemnation before the district court, and an appeal was taken to the circuit court, where it is still pending.
[87] *Perhaps a particular statement of the facts in relation to these cases was not required from me, but being in doubt on this subject I have given them according to the best information which I have been enabled to acquire, from the testimony collected and offered to the courts before which the cases have been heard.
I am, yours, &c., &c.,
Hon. John Quincy Adams,
Secretary of State.