United States v. Schooner Emperor

United States v. Schooner Emperor

Lower Court

  • United States Supreme Court


  • 1839


  • 476


  • 864


Answers of W. Cromwell.

1st I do.

2nd Some time about the 8th of February last said vessel entered the Bay of St. Joseph From Havanna, as Temporary inspector at the request of the Collector I went on board the Schooner Emperor. Charles G. Cox was not on board at the time I visited the vessel but was ashore. He however Chared the Schooner as Master and I believe entered her in that capacity; Paul de Malherbe landed from her as passenger on her arrival at St. Joseph, but was not on board during my visit, The crew appeared to me to be foreigners without exceptions,. Spaniards, and Italians.

4th There was a current report at St. Joseph a few days after the Emperor left, that she had brought African negroes from the Havanna landed at St. Joseph Bay and arrived to St. Andrews Bay by Capt Loften’s ferry

5th At the time, I first heard the report I did not believe it, but about two weeks afterwards I heard it in such a manner from Joseph Crosky as to give it credence.

6th Joseph Crosky Esq[?] claims them as joint owner with Paul de Malherbe and another person in Havanna whose name I do not know.

7th Of my own knowledge I do not know that Schooner Emperor brought slaves, but was told by Crosky that she did; I examined her thoroughly as temporary Inspector and found nothing to justify the opinion that she had been engaged in any illicit pursuit.

8th Malherbe never said any thing to me on the subject, but Crosky informed me she had brought slaves from the Havanna owned by him; Malherbe & some person in the Havanna whose name I forget.

9th I did not see the slaves until they were in the hands of the Marshal of Middle Florida, by virtue of [?], he then had eight in possession which agrees with the number Crosky told me had been imported

10th I can state nothing further

(signed) Warham Cromwell