rendered Amelia Island to Col. Bankhead. But he had no commission or authority either from Buenos Ayres or Chile. "I believe that he never had authority from any government to issue commissions; but that, from the revolutionary government of New Granada, while it lasted, he had a commission authorizing him to exercise belligerent rights. That he had no authority from the Governments of Buenos Ayres or of Chile, when at Amelia Island, was explicitly declared by the principal authorities of those republics to the commissioners of the United States nearly about the same time while he was issuing the above mentioned proclamation in the name of the confederated republics at Old Providence. "Whether he has ever been commissioned by the Republic of Colombia I do not know, but I have no doubt that his commission to the Snake, in the name of the United Republics of Buenos Ayres and Chile, was unauthorized by them. "I have thought it due as well in candor to you, as with reference to the United States in whose behalf your clients have been prosecuted, and to those unfortunate men themselves, to answer your enquiries explicitly, and to inform you of what is known to this Government concerning Aury and his proceedings. If Aury has ever had at any time authority from any of the South American governments, which could even color a commission issued by him to exercise belligerent rights, it can have been from no other than the Republic of Colombia. A minister from the United States to that republic will probably soon be dispatched; and any testimony which you may desire to obtain, which can serve the cause of the prisoners, may be without difficulty procured through him. Instructions to that effect will be given him, should you have the goodness to inform me that you wish it. In that case, I shall request you to transmit to me the inquiries to which you would propose that he should direct his attention." Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Messrs. Aylwin & Spooner, of Boston, Thomas Smith was found guilty by special verdict in the United States circuit court for Virginia of the crime of piracy, on the following facts: In March, 1819, Smith and others, forming part of the crew of a privateer called the Creollo, commissioned by the government of Buenos Ayres, mutinied in the port of Margaritta, and leaving the vessel seized another privateer called the Irresistible, lying in that port, commissioned by the government of Artigas. They then proceeded to sea in the Irresistible without any documents or commission whatever, and in April, 1819, on the high seas, plundered and robbed a Spanish vessel. The circuit court certified the case to the Supreme Court on a division of opinion as to whether the acts of which the defendants were found guilty were punishable as piracy under the act of Congress of March 3, 1819. The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Story delivering the opinion, defined the offense of piracy as "robbery, or forcible depredations upon the sea, animo furandi,” and held that as the defendant and his associates were at the time of committing the offense "freebooters upon the sea, not under the acknowledged authority, or deriving protection from the flag or commission of any government," they were undoubtedly guilty of piracy. United States v. Smith (1820), 5 Wheat. 153. See a note to this case by Mr. Justice Story, in which various definitions of piracy are collected from writers on the civil law, the law of nations, maritime law, and the common law. Thomas Smith, James Thomas (alias James West), Stephen Sidney, John Green, Isaac Sales (a man of color), Peter Johnson (a man of color), and Daniel Livingston were pardoned. (Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pegram, U. S. marshal at Dinwiddie Court House, Va., Jan. 23, 1822, 19 MS. Dom. Let. 247.) John Furlong, alias Hobson, a British subject, was indicted in the United States circuit court at Savannah for piracy. It appeared that the piratical vessel was American and was run away with by the master and crew, who committed depredations on an English vessel. Benjamin Brailsford and James Griffin were indicted in the United States circuit court at Charleston for piracy. The question was raised whether an American citizen, fitting out a vessel in an American port to cruise against a power at peace with the United States, was protected by a commission from a belligerent from punishment for any offence committed against American vessels. David Bowers and Henry Mathews were indicted in the United States circuit court at Savannah for a piratical robbery committed on an American ship. They were part of the crew of the privateer Louise, which was commissioned by Buenos Ayres and commanded by Captain Almeida. There was no proof that the Louise was Americanowned. In October, 1818, her crew rose and, putting the officers out of the ship, proceeded on a piratical cruise in which they committed a robbery on the American vessel Asia, then at anchor in an open roadstead at the island of Bonavista. At that time the name New York had been painted on the stern of the Lovise, and the person who was commanding her asserted himself and the vessel to be American. The same persons, David Bowers and Henry Mathews, were also indicted for piracy, consisting in a robbery committed on board the British ship Sir Thomas Hardy on the high seas. In the foregoing cases it was held that, so far as any question was involved of the national character of the prisoners or of the vessels, the moment the latter were taken from their officers" and proceeded on a piratical cruise, the crew lost all claim to national character, and whether citizens or foreigners," became equally punishable. United States v. Pirates (1820), 5 Wheat. 184. (Mr. Adams, Sec. It appears that Bowers and Mathews were pardoned. See. State, to Mr. Nicholson, U. S. marshal at New Orleans, April 3, 1820, Death warrants were issued in the following cases: John Desfarge and William Holmes, Thomas Warrington, alias Warren Fawcett, and Edward Rosemaine were indicted in the United States circuit court at Boston for piracy. The facts appear to be that a vessel, appar ently Spanish, was captured by two pretended Buenos Ayrean privateers. A prize crew was put on board the captured vessel, and among the crew were the prisoners, one of whom was a citizen of the United States, the rest being foreigners. They subsequently threw overboard the prize master and drowned him. It did not appear by any legal proof that the privateers had commissions from Buenos Ayres or any documents from that government, or were ever recognized as ships of that nation or of its subjects. The prisoners were convicted, and on motion for a new trial, the judges differing, certain questions were certified to the Supreme Court, one of which was whether the court had jurisdiction of the offence charged, if the vessel on which it was committed had at the time no real national character, but was possessed and held by pirates, or by persons not lawfully sailing under the flag or entitled to the protection of any government, and whether the burden of proof as to national character rested on the United States or on the prisoners. It was held that if the offence. was committed on board of a piratical vessel it was cognizable by the United States, and that the burden of proof as to national character rested on the prisoners. United States v. Holmes et al. (1820), 5 Wheat. 412. In this case the President, after consulting the Attorney-General, declined to exercise clemency. (Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Prince, U. S. marshal at Boston, May 25, 1820, 18 MS. Dom. Let. 56.` Under the 4th section of the act of March 3, 1819, any piratical aggression subjects the vessel to forfeiture, though not made lucri causa, and though the owners were entirely innocent and the vessel was armed for a lawful purpose and sailed on a lawful voyage." But not every hostile attack in time of peace is piratical. It may be by mistake, or in necessary self-defence, or to repel a supposed meditated attack by pirates. If it is justifiable no blame attaches." The aggression must be a first aggression, unprovoked by any previous act of hostility or menace from the other side. Probable cause is a sufficient excuse for a capture for piratical aggression. The chargé d'affaires of Portugal having requested the immediate discharge of a Portuguese vessel which had been captured by Captain Stockton, U. S. S. Allegator, and sent in to Boston, on the ground that the capture was made in consequence of an attack by the Portuguese vessel under an erroneous impression that the Allegator was a South American privateer, the district attorney of the United a United States v. Brig Malek Adhel, 2 How. 210. The Marianna Flora, 11 Wheat. 1. c Black, At. Gen., 1860, 9 Op. 455. a The Marianna Flora, 11 Wheat. 1; The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1. States at Boston was instructed that it was the desire of the President, if the circumstances were found to be as stated, that the vessel should be restored to her captain, upon terms as easy and indulgent as might be compatible with the law. Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Blake, Jan. 4, 1822, 19 MS. Dom. Let. 231. A merchant vessel whose subordinate crew rise in revolt, and, after killing the captain, make depredations on other shipping, is a pirate by the law of nations. Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Starkweather, Sept. 18, 1854, MS. Inst. As to proceedings by United States consuls in foreign ports in cases of Where a portion of the crew of the steamer Edgar Stewart forcibly displaced the master from command and took possession of the vessel, it was advised that this did not constitute the offense of piracy, but of mutiny; that, for the latter offense, the parties charged are liable to be tried and punished under the laws of the United States, and that they may be tried therefor in any district into which they are first brought. Hill, Assistant At. Gen. (1872), 14 Op. 589. It is not statutory piracy for the captain of a vessel, to whom the vessel and cargo have been consigned with instructions to proceed to the Pacific and there sell vessel and cargo and remit the proceeds to the owners, to fail to remit such proceeds after having made sale according to instructions; and his arrest on such a charge would be false imprisonment. Wirt, At. Gen. (1825), 2 Op. 19. A mere intention or even preparation to commit piracy is not piracy. Mr. Clayton, Sec. of State, to Mr. Calderon de la Barca, July 9, 1850, MS. Notes to Spain, VI. 209. A French vessel with kidnapped Africans on board was captured by pirates, and from them recaptured by an American Kidnapped persons. vessel and brought into port. A demand made by the French minister for the restoration of the Africans was held to be well founded. Wirt, At. Gen. (1822), 1 Op. 534. Under the 9th article of the treaty of 1795, between the United States and Spain, providing for the restoration of property rescued |