[INSTANCE COURT. SLAVE TRADE ACTS.] The MERINO. The CONSTITUTION. The LOUISA. The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded in Admiralty proceedings. It is sufficient, if an information set forth the offence so as clearly to bring it within the statute upon which the information is founded. It is not necessary that it should conclude contra formam statuti. The District Court of the District where the seizure was made, and If the seizure is made on the high seas, or within the territory of a The prohibitions in the Slave Trade Acts of the 10th of May, 1800, Under the 4th section of the act of the 10th of May, 1800, c. 205.` [li] the owner of the slaves transported contrary to the provisions of that act, cannot claim the same in a Court of the United States, although they may be held in servitude according to the laws of his own country. But if, at the time of the capture by a coinmissioned vessel, the offending ship was in possession of a non-commissioned captor, who had made a seizure for the same offence, the owner of the slaves may claim; the section only applying to persons interested in the enterprise or voyage in which the ship was employed at the time of such capture. APPEAL from the District Court of Alabama. These were the cases of several vessels, and their 1824. The Merino, et al. 1821. The Merino, et al. eargoes of African slaves. The information filed in the case of the Constitution was, as well on behalf of the United States, as of George M. Brooke, a colonel in the army of the United States. The first count, after stating the seizure of this vessel, with a valuable cargo on board, and eightyfour African slaves, by the said Brooke, on waters navigable from the sea by vessels of ten tons burthen and upwards, alleges, that the said vessel, being a vessel of the United States, owned by citizens of the United States, was employed in carrying on trade, business or traffic, contrary to the true intent of an act of Congress, passed on the 10th of May, 1800, entitled, "an act to prohibit the carrying on of the slave trade from the United States to any foreign place or country," that is to say, was employed or made use of in the transportation of slaves from one foreign country to another, viz. from Havanna to Pensacola, both places belonging to the king of Spain, contrary to the form of the said act, whereby the said vessel and her cargo became forfeited. . It was admitted, by the counsel for the respondents, that the second and third counts were unsupported by the evidence, and they were, therefore, abandoned. The fourth count charges, that certain citizens of the United States did, in June, 1818, take on board, or transport from one foreign place or country to another, certain negroes, in a vessel, for the purpose of holding, selling, or otherwise disposing of them as slaves, or to be held to labour or service. In the case of the Merino, the information et al contains three counts, the second of which alone 1824, was relied upon by the counsel for the respon- The Merino, dent, and this states, that on the day of June, 1818, certain citizens of the United States received on board of the said vessel, belonging to citizens of the United States, and transported from one foreign place or country, viz. from Cuba to Pensacola, a certain number of negroes, for the purpose of holding the said negroes as slaves; and that the said vessel, with her cargo, and the negroes, were, on the 21st of June, 1818, seized on the high seas by Capt. M'Keever, commander of the United States ketch Surprise, and were brought into the District of Mobile, for a violation of the laws of the United States, and particularly of the 4th section of the act of 1818. The information in the case of the Louisa and her cargo, was substantially the same as the one last mentioned, the second count being also founded on the 4th section of the act of 1818. The evidence in these cases established the following facts, viz. that the above vessels, owned by citizens of the United States, and registered as such, sailed from certain ports in the United States to Havana, where they each received on board certain goods, as also a number of slaves, newly imported from the coast of Africa, the latter belonging to subjects of Spain, residents either of Havana or Pensacola, to be transported from the former to the latter place. The Merino cleared out at Havana on the 2d of June, 1818, for Mobile, and the Constitution and Louisa, on the 10th of the same month, for New-Orleans. VOL. IX. 50 The Merino, et al. 1824. The owners of these vessels, however, engaged to land the slaves at Pensacola, on their respective voyages to New-Orleans and Mobile. On their arrival within, or near to, the bay of Pensacola, that place was found in possession of the American army, under the command of Gen. Jackson. The Merino was seized by the United States ketch Surprise, commanded by Capt. M'Keever, within a mile and a half of fort Barancas, inside the bar, and within the harbour of Pensacola. The Constitution was taken possession of by Col. Brooke, of the United States army, under the guns of fort Barancas, then in possession of the United States forces. The Louisa was captured by Capt. M'Keever, in the ketch before mentioned, outside of the bar at Pensacola, standing in. These vessels, with their goods on board, and the negroes, were sent to the district of Mobile for adjudication. The Constitution, having on board an agent of Col. Brooke, was boarded off Mobile point by the United States revenue boat, and was carried in and reported by Capt. Lewis, commanding said boat, to the Collector, as having been seized by him, the agent reporting the seizure as having been made by Col. Brooke. The informations against these vessels and their cargoes, were filed in the General Court for the territory of Alabama, from whence the proceedings were removed into the District Court of Alabama, where the vessels and their cargoes were severally condemned as forfeited to the United States, but the distribution was reserved for the future order of the Court. From these sentences of condemnation, the claimants of the vessels and the cargoes appealed to this Court. 1824. The Merino et al: Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, for the appellants, (1.) ar- Feb. 20th. gued upon the facts, to show that the transactions were in good faith; that Pensacola was the real destination of the persons transported, who were slaves by the laws of Spain established in the island of Cuba: that there was no intention of introducing them into the United States, contrary to our laws, but that they were bound from one Spanish colony to another, under a license from the local government. (2.) That the temporary occupation of Pensacola, in 1818, by the troops of the United States, under Gen. Jackson, was not such a conquest in war as changed the national character of the province of Florida, but was a mere incursion into the country, for the purpose of chastising the Indian savages, and depriving them of succours and a place of refuge. The principle, that a lawful conquest in war has the effect of suspending the operation of the local laws of the place, and of establishing such others as the conqueror thinks fit to substitute, was incontestable, but could not apply to such a case as that before the Court." The United States were not at war with Spain; and even if they had been, the occupation of the Spanish territory by their arms would not change the jurisdiction, until its possession was confirmed by a a The United States v. Hayward, 2 Gall. Rep. 501. United States v. Rice, 4 Wheat. Rep. 246. The Foltina, Dodson's Adm. Rep. 450. |