United States v. Schooner Emperor

United States v. Schooner Emperor

Lower Court

  • United States Supreme Court


  • 1839


  • 476


  • 864


Answer 5th

Said Vessel was board at my request by Warham Cromwell Temporary Inspector with instructions to make a particular examination who reported that there were no suspicions attached to said Vessel from all he could see that there was nothing on board but a few oranges in the hold.

6th I am not certain of my own knowledge that said Schooner brought negroes supposed to be Africans into the Territory about the above time, but from circumstances and the singular conduct of the Schooner on the afternoon of the 6th February I have since believed such was the case.

7th Soon after the Schooner Emperor left St. Joseph Bay a number of negroes supposed to be from a foreign country, were seen at St. Andrews, which is in the vicinity of St Joseph Bay.

8th It was so supposed.

9th A Schooner was seen by me on the evening of the 6th of February last rounding St Joseph Point, having the appearance of a Revenue Cutter which proved to be the Schooner Emperor Charles G. Cox Master from Havanna and was entered at my office on the following day, The conduct of the schooner seemed to be unusual in this; that the afternoon & night of the 6th was passed between the Point and mainland. In addition to this her Cargo -- consisted of only a few oranges in the hold and soon after the vessel left circumstances occurred to create suspicion to her having brought negroes from a foreign part into this Territory.

10th In addition to what is already stated calculated to throw suspicion upon the vessel; she had neither Register nor list of Crew; Her crew tho an American vessel was composed entirely of foreigners. One Paul de Malherbe was a passenger who subsequently proved to be interested in the negroes. I did not seize the vessel because the master Cox produced certification from the American Consul at Havanna as to the transfer of Schooner Emperor and his inability to procure an-