Report on the Capture of the Sloop Chester, 24 November 1785
Report on the Capture of the Sloop Chester
Office for foreign Affairs 24 Novr. 1785
The Secretary of the United States for the Department of foreign affairs to whom was referred a Number of Papers relative to the Capture of the Sloop Chester1 Reports
That the said sloop was captured on the 17 June 1777 by a Brig called the Fair American Captain Cha. Morgan, and the Brig Experiment Captain Francis Morgan private vessels of war commissioned by the President of South Carolina, and carried to Charleston in that State.
That the said sloop when taken, was on a voyage from Honduras to Rotterdam, but last from bermuda, and commanded by William Bray.
That on the Inspection of her Papers by the Captors they judged her to be british Property, and carrying her as lawful Prize to Charleston, there libelled her in the Court of Admiralty the 3d July 1777.
That on the 14 Day of July 1777 she was decreed to be a lawful Prize by the said Court and sold &c. accordingly.
That no claim was made in the said Court on Behalf of the captured—none of them being present.
That the only witnesses which appear to have been examined before the Court in this Cause were Edw. Dickenson the Prize master, and Andrew Morehead one of the Fair American’s Crew—
That the Captors did not bring the Master, Pilot or any one or more of the principal Persons of the company of the said Prize to the Judge of the Court aforesaid to be examined touching the interest or property of the said Prize and her Lading, as by the 4 Article of their Instructions it was their Duty to have done—
That no appeal from the said Sentence or Decree was made to Congress on Behalf of the said Prize within the Time limited by the Act of Congress of 25 November 1775 nor was it practicable, the Claimants being in foreign parts, and the Master having been carried by the Captors to St. Eustatia instead of Charleston.2
That the Minister of the United Netherlands had laid before your Secretary sundry Proofs tending to shew that the said Prize was Dutch and not British Property—which proofs, together with the Proceedings of the Court are herewith sent—3
That your Secretary thinks it would not become him to give any opinion on the Merits of the Decree in this Cause. He therefore confines himself to the following Observations, Vizt.—
That audi alteram Partem4 is one of the first Principles of Justice, and should never be neglected in Judicial Proceedings.
That in his opinion the Court ought not to have proceeded to Judgement without having first heard the captured or some of them, or at least without having given them a reasonable Time to appear and make their Defence—That as neither of these Precautions were taken, the Defendants are right in desiring that the Cause may be reheard; and in the opinion of your Secretary it ought to be removed to, and finally heard and decided by the Court of appeals.5
That as there is great Reason to believe that the Captors have not complied with the conditions of their Bonds, but have violated them by disobeying the 4 Article of their Instructions above mentioned your Secretary thinks their bonds should be put in Suit.
All which is submitted to the wisdom of Congress6
(Signed) John Jay
LbkCs, DNA: PCC, item 124, 1: 222–24 (EJ: 4543); NNC: JJ Lbk. 3.
1. Originally a British vessel carrying British papers, the Chester had been purchased in 1776 by Peter T. Van Teylingen, a Dutch merchant then residing at the British settlement of St. George’s Quay on the Bay of Honduras, who claimed to be acting for a group of Netherlands businessmen.
2. The owners of the vessel later petitioned Congress for relief on grounds that the ship was Dutch and the United Provinces was a neutral nation. See the Chester’s owners to Congress, undated LS, DNA: PCC, item 45, 137–49. On 2 June 1784, a committee assigned to report on a letter of 23 Nov. 1783 from Van Berckel regarding the Chester noted that the owners’ appeal had not been made within the mandated timeframe. Congress then decided to refer Van Berckel’s note to the governor of South Carolina for verification of the facts it contained. See 3: 371–75; and 27: 509–11.
3. The for November 1785 (EJ: 3757) indicates that the papers were those Congress had referred to JJ on 18 Mar. when it discharged a committee assigned to the case, and documents JJ had received from Van Berckel on 22 June, listed in the Journal under that date (EJ: 3752). See 28: 157, 181.
4. “Hear the other side”.
5. As president of Congress, JJ had shared in drafting a major decision in March 1779 that affirmed the power of special committees of Congress to examine decisions of fact and law in appeals from state courts of admiralty, and to issue a final decree. Congress subsequently set up a court of appeals in cases of capture and asserted its authority to seize prizes of the enemy. The 10th Article of Confederation explicitly recognized Congress’s final appellate jurisdiction in such matters. See 1: 553–54; 17: 457–59; 19: 315; and Henry J. Bourguignon, The First Federal Court: The Federal Appellate Prize Court of the American Revolution (Philadelphia, 1977) 293–318.
6. JJ’s report was assigned to a committee that reported on 24 July 1786, when Congress authorized the court of appeals in cases of captures to hear the case. JJ forwarded a copy of the act to Van Berckel on 29 July, LbkC, , 2: 418 (EJ: 2010); 6: 488. On 3 May 1787, the court ruled that the Chester, originally registered in Great Britain, had been sold to Dutch owners for the purpose of avoiding capture and that it had been rightfully condemned even though the South Carolina admiralty court’s proceedings had been faulty. See 30: 423–24; 23: 115–17, 384, 415.