1822.

The Santissima Trinidad.

doctrine heretofore asserted by this Court, and we see no reason to depart from it.

The next question growing out of this record, is whether the property in controversy was captured in violation of our neutrality, so that restitution ought, by the law of nations, to be decreed to the libellants. Two grounds are relied upon to justify restitution: First, that the Independencia and Altravida were originally equipped, armed, and manned as vessels of war in our ports; Secondly, that there was an illegal augmentation of the force of the Independencia within our ports. Are these grounds, or either of them, sustained by the evidence?

If the cause stood solely upon the testimony of the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the libellants, we should have great hesitation in admitting the conclusions which have been drawn from it. The witnesses, indeed, speak directly and uniformly either to the point of illegal equipment, or illegal augmentation of force within our ports. But their testimony is much shaken by the manifest contradictions which it involves, and by declarations of facts, the falsity of which was entirely within their knowledge, and has been completely established in proof. It has been said, that if witnesses concur in The doctrine proof of a material fact, they ought to be believed in

that if witnesses

concur in proof

of a material respect to that fact, whatever may be the other con

fact, they ought

to be believed tradictions in their testimony. That position may

in respect to

that fact, what be true under circumstances; but it is a doctrine

ever may be the

other contra- which can be received only under many qualifica

dictions in their

testimony,ought tions, and with great caution. If the circumstances

to be received

under many qualifications, and with great caution.

1822.

The Santissima Trinidad.

Application of the maxim, fal

sus in omnibus.

respecting which the testimony is discordant be im-
material, and of such a nature, that mistakes may
easily exist, and be accounted for in a manner con-
sistent with the utmost good faith and probability,
there is much reason for indulging the belief that the
discrepancies arise from the infirmity of the human
mind, rather than from deliberate error. But where
the party speaks to a fact in respect to which he can- sus in cuno fal
not be presumed liable to mistake, as in relation to
the country of his birth, or his being in a vessel on
a particular voyage, or living in a particular place,
if the fact turn out otherwise, it is extremely diffi-
cult to exempt him from the charge of deliberate
falsehood; and Courts of justice, under such cir-
cumstances, are bound, upon principles of law, and
morality and justice, to apply the maxim falsus in
uno, falsus in omnibus. What ground of judicial
belief can there be left, when the party has shown
such gross insensibility to the difference between
right and wrong, between truth and falsehood? The
contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses of
the libellants have been exposed at the bar with
great force and accuracy; and they are so numerous
that, in ordinary cases, no Court of justice could
venture to rely on it without danger of being be-
But in a case of the

trayed into the grossest errors.
description of that before the Court, where the so-
vereignty and rights of a foreign belligerent nation
are in question, and where the exercise of jurisdic-
tion over captures made under its flag, can be justi-
fied only by clear proof of the violation of our neu-
trality, there are still stronger reasons for abstaining

1822.

The

from interference, if the testimony is clouded with doubt and suspicion. We adhere to the rule which Santissima has been already adopted by this Court, that restitution ought not to be decreed upon the ground of capture in violation of our neutrality, unless the fact be established beyond all reasonable doubt.

Trinidad.

Our municipal laws do not pro

in contraband

But the present case does not stand upon this testimony alone. It derives its principal proofs altogether from independent sources, to the consideration of which the attention of the Court will now be directed.

The question as to the original illegal armament hibit the trade and outfit of the Independencia may be dismissed in articles. It is a few words. It is apparent, that though equipped by the law of as a vessel of war, she was sent to Buenos Ayres on a commercial adventure, contraband, indeed, but

merely subject,

natious, to the

penalty of con fiscation, in case of capture.

in no shape violating our laws on our national neutrality. If captured by a Spanish ship of war during the voyage she would have been justly condemned as good prize, and for being engaged in a traffick prohibited by the law of nations. But there is nothing in our laws, or in the law of nations, that forbids our citizens from sending armed vessels, as well as munitions of war, to foreign ports for sale. It is a commercial adventure which no nation is bound to prohibit; and which only exposes the persons engaged in it to the penalty of confiscation. Supposing, therefore, the voyage to have been for commercial purposes, and the sale at Buenos Ayres to have been a bona fide sale, (and there is nothing in the evidence before us to contradict it,) there is no pretence to say, that the original outfit on the

voyage was illegal, or that a capture made after the sale was, for that cause alone, invalid.

aug

1822.

The Santissima Trinidad.

Augmentation of the force of

the Indepen

dencia in our

The more material consideration is as to the mentation of her force in the United States, at a subsequent period. It appears from the evidence, and, indeed, is admitted by Captain Chaytor, that after ports. the sale in May, 1816, the Independencia sailed for Buenos Ayres under his command, on a cruise against Spain; and after visiting the coast of Spain, she put into Baltimore early in the month of October of the same year, having then on board the greater part of her original crew, among whom were many Americans. On her arrival at Baltimore, she was received as a public ship, and there underwent considerable repairs. Her bottom was new coppered, some parts of her hull were recaulked, part of the water-ways were replaced, a new head was put on, some new sails and rigging to a small amount, and a new mainyard was obtained, some bolts were driven into the hull, and the mainmast, which had been shivered by lightning, was taken out, reduced in length, and replaced in its former station. In order to make these repairs, her guns, ammunition and cargo were discharged under the inspection of an officer of the customs, and when the repairs were made, the armament was replaced, and a report made by the proper officer to the collector, that there was no addition to her armament. The Independencia left Baltimore in the latter part of December, 1816, having then on board a crew of 112 men; and about the 8th of January following, she sailed from the Capes of the Chesapeake on the cruise on which

1822.

The

Trinidad.

the property in question was captured, being accompanied by the Altravida, as a tender, or despatch vesSantissima sel. It will be necessary, hereafter, to make more particular mention of the Altravida; but, for the present, the observations of the Court will be confined to the Independencia. It is admitted by the claimant, that during her stay at Baltimore, several persons were enlisted on board the Independencia, and his own witnesses prove that the number was about thirty.

The first observation that occurs on this part of the case is, that here is a clear augmentation of force within our jurisdiction. The excuse offered is, that the persons so enlisted, represented themselves, or were supposed to be, persons in the service of Buenos Ayres. Of this, however, there is not the slightest Onus probandi proof. The enlistment of men being proved, it is on the claim- incumbent on the claimant to show that they were

ant, to show

that the aug

mentation of persons who might lawfully be enlisted; and as the

force by enlist

ment was law- burden of proof rests on him, the presumption neces

ful.

sarily arising from the absence of such proof is that they were not of that character. It is not a little remarkable that not a single officer of the Independencia has been examined on this occasion. They are the persons who, from their situation, must have been acquainted with the facts; and the total omission to bring their testimony into the cause can scarcely be accounted for but upon a supposition extremely unfavourable to the innocence of the transaction.

pre

Another observation which is drawn from the dicament of this case is, that if, as the claimant as