L00193905R 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 https://archive.org/details/caseofcaptwmbroaOOyork 
 
THE CASE 
 
 OF 
 
 V \ i < 
 
 CAPT. WM. BROADER YORK, 
 
 COMMANDER OF THE 
 
 BRITISH BARQUE ALDEBARAN 
 
 OF LIVERPOOL, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 / 
 
 THE PROCEEDINGS IfAD BEFORE HIS HONOR GEO. W. LEWIS, RECORDER OF MUNICIPALITY 
 NO. 3, OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ON AN AFFIDAVIT MADE BY 
 
 RICHARD HARRISON CHILTON, 
 
 CHARGING CAPTAIN YORK WITH AN ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A BREACH OT THE PEACE. 
 
 / 
 
 AND, ALSO, 
 
 THE TRIAL OF THE RULE 
 
 GRANTED BY IIIS HONOR THEODORE H. M’CALEB, JUDGE OP THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
 COURT, FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, ON THE FILING OF THE PETITION 
 OF RICHARD HARRTSON CHILTON, PRAYING FOR A LIBEL TO SEIZE 
 THE SAID BARdUE, IN ORDER TO DISPOSSESS 
 CAPTAIN YORK OF HIS COMMAND. 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX. 
 
 BY AN OBSERVER. 
 
 NEW ORLEANS: 
 
 Printed for the Compiler, and Published at the Office of the “Jeffersonian Republican/' 
 under the St. Charles Hotel. For sale and to he had at that Office, and also 
 at D. Morgan’s Literary Depot, Exchange Place. 
 
 PRICE ONE DOLLAR 
 
 1845 
 
THE FLOWERS COLLECTION 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 To THE CoMMANERS OF VESSELS, BOTH BRITISH AND AMERICAN, AND 
 the Mercantile tublic generally. 
 
 The compiler of this pamphlet having been urged by numerous indi¬ 
 viduals, whose interests and liberty are so deeply connected with the late 
 investigation of the conduct of Capt. York, before the Recorder of the 
 Third Municipality of this city, to collate the proceedings and circum¬ 
 stances of the case, now presents to those who desire light or informa¬ 
 tion upon this matter, a plain statement of the facts connected with it, as 
 they have come to his knowledge. 
 
 The compiler has endeavored to do no one any injury by either garb¬ 
 ling statements made, or distorting such parts as might give him more li¬ 
 cense than he will avail himself of, in giving a ludicrous coloring in 
 portraying some of the characters who bear conspicuous parts in this af¬ 
 fair. Such is not his object; those who have made themselves obnoxious 
 to ridicule, are welcome to such laurels,'—all that he desires to do is, to 
 speak of all as he has found them, “nothing extenuate, nor aught set down 
 in malice.” 
 
 The story speaks for itself—a young man (R. H. Chilton,) connected 
 with reputed, wealthy and honorable merchants in England, who are en¬ 
 gaged largely in the carrying trade between the Southern ports of the 
 United States and Great Britain, states that his father, although his name 
 is not on the register of the barque Aldebaran, is the commercial partner 
 of the owner of that vessel, and in consequence of such connection he (R. 
 H. C.) presumes upon the rights of the owners and claims to be the agent 
 for the owner of this particular vessel, without producing the shadow of 
 authority for such assumption. A difficulty arises between the comman¬ 
 der (York) and his mate, (Scott)—forthwith Mr. Chilton interposes to dis¬ 
 place the former and elevate the latter to command; in all which the British 
 Consul co-operates. 
 
 In presenting this compilation, detailing the circumstances of this case, 
 recourse has necessarily been had to the Records of the Courts, the news¬ 
 paper press, and other valuable sources. No literary fame is sought after 
 or needed: the testimony, on a calm perusal, must convince all that there 
 must he some hidden motive for changing the supervision of the business 
 of the vessel from the ship-master, to whom it had been delegated 
 by the owner, to the merchant. 
 
 It will be observed that Capt. York was honorably acquitted by the Re¬ 
 corder—that there were no grounds whatever for the fears of Chilton, but 
 
4 
 
 on the contrary, the pacific character of Capt. York was clearly estab¬ 
 lished; if fault he had committed, it consisted in too mild a submission, 
 in the first place, to the wrongs done him in asking him to yield that au¬ 
 thority which the laws of nations, as well as the owner, gave him, by al¬ 
 lowing another person to come on board his vessel and attempt to as- 
 - sume that command of which it was pretended he had been deprived. No 
 power was competent to this, unless it might be that so'me most extraordi¬ 
 nary conduct or gross violation of law on his part had been committed, 
 (but of this no proof was even offered, much less shown, at any stage of 
 the proceedings in the different investigations to prove any such allega¬ 
 tion,) until he had delivered his vessel up at the place, and to those where, 
 and from whom he had received and was to deliver her. 
 
 The manner in which this unfortunate commander has been used, par¬ 
 takes more of the character of persecution than of justice, as will be seen 
 by the many means resorted to to harrass and vex him by the most annoy¬ 
 ing suits, and the repeated attempts of Chilton, after he had gone as far 
 as it is presumed he deemed it prudent to go, in withdrawing his suit for 
 the possession of the Captain’s own chronometer, and for libel in the U. 
 S. District Court, and winding up the climax by illegally and unlawfully 
 carrying off the barque Aldebaran—this done, too, under the cover of 
 night, and in presence of the British Consul, with other aiders and 
 abettors. 
 
 The attention of the reader is particularly called to the proceedings in 
 the U. S. District Court, and to the law quoted in the appendix, from 
 which the Consul pretended his authority was derived to defend him in the 
 course which he thought proper to pursue in the first place, by issuing his 
 order to supercede Capt. York as commander. 
 
 The suit brought before his honor, Judge Jackson, Associate Judge of 
 the City Court, by Richard H. Chilton, for the possession of the chro- 
 nometor—the private property of Capt. York—came up for trial; but it is 
 believed the evident injustice of this proceeding induced the plaintiff to 
 withdraw the suit, on payment of costs, without further proceedings. It is 
 deemed unnecessary to notice this act further. 
 
 Should the compiler have succeeded in calling proper attention to the 
 relative rights of so large a portion of worthy men, who visit the ports of 
 the United States from Great Britain, in reference to their duty to, and the 
 British Consul’s proper authority towards them,—thereby creating a bet¬ 
 ter understanding of the position each occupies, and thus prevent the fre¬ 
 quent collisions with British Masters and their Consuls, not only in New 
 Orleans, but also in other cities; also, to curb the exercise of powers not 
 delegated, or those acts which appear unnecessarily harsh or tyrannical,— 
 then he will have accomplished all he desires. 
 
 Very Respectfully, 
 
 AN OBSERVER. 
 
 New Orleans, May, 1845. 
 
PROCEEDINGS 
 
 OF THE RECORDER’S COURT —MUNICIPALITY NO, 3 . 
 
 IN THE CASE OE 
 
 THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, 
 
 vs. 
 
 WILLIAM BROADER YORK. 
 
 A true copy from the Records of said Court. 
 
 STATE OF LOUISIANA, 
 
 Municipality No. 3 — Parish and city of New Orleans. 
 
 STATE VS. W. B. YORK, — INTENDED BREACH OF THE PEACE. 
 
 Affidavit of Richard Harrison Chilton .Personally appeared before me, G. W. 
 Lewis, Recorder of Municipality No. 3, of the city of New Orleans, acting as justice 
 of the peace, duly commissioned and sworn, R. H. Chilton, who being sworn, does 
 depose and say, that he is apprehensive, and has strong reasons to believe and fear that 
 W. B. York is about to commit a breach of the peace, by intruding himself, and inter¬ 
 fering with the command of the British ship “ Aldebaran,” of which the deponent is 
 the agent in this city. Deponent has cause to apprehend that said York will create a 
 disturbance on board of said vessel, unless he be arrested and bound to keep the peace; 
 wherefore, he prays that said York be arrested and dealt with according to law. 
 
 (Signed,) R. H. CHILTON. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me, in New Orleans, this 15th day of April, 1845. 
 
 (Signed,) G. W. LEWIS, 
 
 . Recorder of Municipality No. 3. 
 
 WARRANT. 
 
 STATE OF LOUISIANA. 
 
 Recorder's Office, Municipality No. 3 — Parish and city of New Orleans, 
 
 To Captain E. Mazerat, or any of the men of the police of New Orleans, greeting : 
 Whereas, complaint has been made on the oath of Richard Harrison Chilton, 
 before me, G. W. Lewis, Recorder of the third Municipality of the city aforesaid, that 
 ho is apprehensive, and has strong reasons to believe anil fear that W. B. York is about 
 to commit a broach of the peace, by intruding himself, and interfering with the com- 
 
6 
 
 raand of the British ship “ Aldebaran,” of which he is tho agent for this city, and that 
 lie has cause to apprehend that said York will create a disturbance on board of said 
 vessel. 
 
 You are hereby commanded to take the body of the said W. B. York, and bring him 
 with this warrant before me, to answer to lire complaint; and should he not be found or 
 seen within three days from the date hereof, you will not fail to return immediately this 
 warrant, with what you have done endorsed thereon. 
 
 New Orleans, April 15th, 1845. 
 
 (Signed,) G. W. LEWIS, 
 
 Recorder of Municipality No. 3, of the city of New Orleans. 
 
 Officers' return to the foregoing. 
 
 Received 15th April, 1845; executed on the same day at 61 o'clock, P. M., by arrest¬ 
 ing W. B. York. Returned same day. 
 
 (Signed.) JOSEPH HERNANDEZ. 
 
 V. HERNANDEZ. 
 
 BOND OF APPEARANCE. 
 
 State of Louisiana, 1 W. B. York, as principal, acknowledges to owe the State of 
 City of New Orleans, I Louisiana,[five hundred dollars, and Thomas Hill, a free-holder 
 Municipality No. 3. (of the city, as surety, acknowledge to owe, each of them, to 
 L. S. J the State, five hundred dollars of their several estates, real and 
 
 personal, to be levied to the use of said State upon this condition: that if the said W. B. 
 York shall be and appear before the Recorders’ Court of Municipality No. 3, of the city 
 of New Orleans, to be held in the said city on the 16th of April, 1845; or if the said 
 court should not be held on the day last aforesaid, then, on the first day afterwards, the 
 said court shall be held, then and there aforesaid, to answer to the complaint brought 
 against him for an intended breach of the peace, and not depart thence without leave of 
 said court, and shall keep the peace in the mean time; then this recognizance shall be 
 void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue. 
 
 Taken and acknowledged at the city of New Orleans, the 15th day of April, 1845. 
 
 (Signed,) G. W. LEWIS, 
 
 (Signed,) W. B. YORK, Recorder of Municipality No. 3. 
 
 THOMAS HILL. 
 
 RECORDER’S COURT—MUNICIPALITY NO. 3. 
 
 STATE VS. W. B. YORK.-INTENDED BREACH OF THE PEACE. 
 
 (first DAY.) 
 
 Wednesday , April 1 6th, 1845. 
 
 This cause came on this day, for trial, R. H. Chilton appearing for the 
 State, and Jacob Barker for the accused. The accused’s answer being 
 read and filed, on motion of Mr. Chilton, the cause was continued fo to¬ 
 morrow, at 12 o’clock, M. 
 
7 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 RECORDERS’ COURT, —THIRD MUNICIPALITY. 
 
 State, ) The defendant appears, and for answer, denies that R. If. Chilton is 
 
 vs. [ the agent of the ship “Aldebaran,” and calls on him to establish that 
 
 W. B. York. ) allegation. 
 
 This defendant insists that he had not any intention of committing a breach of tho 
 peace ; and requires that proof of such an intention be adduced. 
 
 Thedefendant insists that he is the lawful agent of the owner of the said vessel; that 
 he is the commander of the said vessel, and as such commander, it :s his intention to super¬ 
 intend the business of the ship; and to use all lawful means in his power to command 
 obedience. 
 
 The defendant charges the said R. H. Chilton with unlawful and unauthorized inter¬ 
 ference with the discipline of said ship; with exciting rebellion and disobedience among 
 the crew, in refusing to obey the orders of this defendant, as master of the said vessel, 
 and thereby endangering the peace of the city. He, therefore prays to be dismissed 
 with costs and damages- 
 
 (Signed,,) JACOB BARKER, 
 
 Counsel for the defendant. 
 
 RECORDER’S COURT—MUNICIPALITY NO. 3. 
 
 (second day.) 
 
 Thursday , April 11th, 1845. 
 
 State, ) This cause came on this day for trial; John Winthrop 
 
 vs. > appearing for the State, and Jacob Barker and Zephyrin 
 
 W. B. York, y Latour for the accused, when, after hearing testimony, the 
 cause was continued to to-morrow, at 12 o’clock, M., at. the instance of 
 Mr. Winthrop, for his client, Mr. Chilton, to produce his authority. Tho 
 Court having ruled that it seemed to him proper it should be produced, 
 inasmuch as the propriety of the Captain’s conduct might depend upon the 
 authority to remove him. 
 
 TESTIMONY TAKEN IN OPEN COURT, APRIL 17TH, 1845. 
 
 Cross-Examination by 3Ir. Barker. 
 
 R. H. Chilton being duly sworn, deposes and says : that Thomas 
 Hunter Holderness, of Liverpool, is the owner of the ship Aldebaran, on 
 the register; he has general and particular letters of instructions from Mr. 
 T. H. Holderness, concerning his vessels and captains; the name of the 
 Aldebaran will appear in some form or other in said letters, but he is 
 attending as agent lor some twenty vessels for the same owners, and 
 cannot particularly state what reference is made to the Aldebaran. Ac- 
 
8 
 
 knowledges his signature and hand writing to three communications, 
 addressed by him to Captain York, and marked No, 1. 
 
 Examination in chief by Mr. Winlhrop. ' 
 
 Captain York called upon witness the first day he arrived—conversed 
 and treated with him as the agent of the owners. Had a general con¬ 
 versation with him as to how his ship was; did not refer him to any 
 person for freight or cargo, the ship being a chartered vessel. The Cap¬ 
 tain did not question his authority as the agent, until after this occurrence 
 took place. His father is a partner of Mr. Holderness ; is concerned 
 with him in the ownership of vessels; cannot swear that his father is part 
 owner of this vessel. Is agent for his father, in relation to all ships that 
 come from that concern; has been particularly requested to attend to these 
 vessels and captains, and has come out here for that purpose. 
 
 Question by Mr. Winlhrop.— What first induced you to apply to the 
 British Consul, in relation to this matter ? 
 
 Answer.' —I did not first apply to the Consul, but the Consul applied to 
 me for an interview. 
 
 Cross-Examined by Mr. Barker. 
 
 Mr. Holderness, who is the owner on the register of the ship Aldebaran, 
 is the partner of his father. The Holderness of Holderness & Chilton, of 
 Kingston upon Hull, is not the owner of the Aldebaran. The ship is a 
 chartered vessel to the “ Hull Flax and Cotton Mill Company;” has a 
 letter from the owner informing him that, that company has chartered the 
 Aldebaran; the letter now produced marked A are the sailing instructions 
 of the Aldebaran; the signature is in the hand writing of T. Holderness, 
 of Kingston upon Hull; the signature to the document marked B is that 
 of T. Holderness, of Kingston upon Hull; the signature to the same 
 document is that of Captain York. 
 
 Question by Mr. Barker. —Are Holderness & Chilton the accredited 
 agents of the owners of the Aldebaran, in relation to the business of that 
 vessel, when at Hull ? 
 
 Answer. —The two houses, together with myself and my brother, are 
 so mixed up in business, that I do not know exactly how to answer the 
 question; as far as I know, Holderness & Chilton of Hull, have exactly 
 the same authority I have. 
 
 Cross-Examination resumed. 
 
 I gave the Captain advice in regard to tradesmen, stevedores, &c., as 
 he had never been here before; provided him also with dunnage for the 
 vessel, and bought broken stowage on account of the ship. Am certain 
 that the purchase of the dunnage was made before my interview with the 
 British Consul, but do not recoll.cct whether the broken stowage was pur¬ 
 chased, or not, before that time; the broken stowage was about five thou- 
 

 sand staves. The first notice I had of the ship’s arrival was a call from 
 Captain York, who wanted his mate discharged. I referred him to the 
 Consul. 
 
 Question bu Mr. Barker .—Are you in the employ of Mr. Peter 
 Maxwell? 
 
 Answer .—-I am to be found there when wanted. 
 
 Cross-Examination resumed. 
 
 After Captain York had got two or three hundred bales on board, he 
 asked me what he was to do, as the ship was standing still. I referred 
 him back to Gordon, Wylie & Co., as they were bound to furnish the 
 whole cargo. I referred Captain York to Gordon, Wylie & Co., before 
 the ship commenced loading. 
 
 Communications marked No. 1, referred to in the testimony of R. H.' 
 Chilton : 
 
 “ Captain York : 
 
 Sir—Meet me at the British Consul’s, at 10 o’clock to-morrow morning; bring the officers 
 of the ship and two of the boys with you. Yours, truly, 
 
 (Signed,) R. H. CHILTON. 
 
 April 4th. 
 
 New Orleans, 5 April, 1845. 
 
 “ Cai>tain York: 
 
 Sir—Her B. M. Consul having this day placed Mr. Scott upon the register of the Aide ' 
 baran, as Master of the said Barque, you will please give up charge of said Barque to him. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 (Signed,) R. H. CHILTON. 
 
 Monday Evening, } 
 
 On board the Barque Aldebaran, ) 
 
 Mr. York : 
 
 Sir—Notwithstanding the Consul’s orders, I understand you have been on board lliis ship, 
 interfering with Captain Scott in his duty, i have now to say, that you will be allowed to 
 come on board this vessel once more only , which will be to allow you to take your property, 
 clothes, &c. out of her; after that you will not be allowed over the gangway. I have also 
 to request, that, as soon as possible, you will render me your accounts. 
 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 (Signed,) R. H. CHILTON. 
 
 Letter marked A, referred to in the testimony of It. H. Chilton; 
 
 Hull, lOJan’y, 1815. 
 
 Capt. W. B. York, 
 
 Of the Barque Aldebaran : 
 
 Sir — You will proceed with the “Aldebaran” to New Orleans, making of course the best 
 of your way, and on your arrival there, address the ship to Messrs. Gordon, Wylie & Co., 
 who will have instructions respecting the loading of your vessel. We are informed that at 
 this season of the year it is advisable to make to the southward as far as the latitude of Ala 
 deira before you make much westing, especially if you can make good way to the Bouth at 
 2 
 
10 
 
 tlio same lime, and you keep edging to the westward. On your.arrival you will bear in 
 mind that the house have the option of loading you for Hull or Liverpool, and when your 
 ship has her ballast trimmed and your dunnage laid, you will send a notice to Gordon, Wy¬ 
 lie & Co., as per annexed, and you must copy it in your Log-Book, and note therein the day 
 and hour you delivered it to them, and to whom it was delivered ; and you will not fail to 
 send us, per Halifax steamer, and also by packet ship by New York, the price current last 
 published when you gave notice. You will enquire if there will be much weight and 
 of what kind, for your guidance in arranging your ballast for the most advantageous and 
 proper stowage. Take care to preserve the cargo from damage as much as possible by mat¬ 
 ting the masts, pump well, bits, &c.,and byputtingold boards in the sides of the ship. The 
 freight of cotton is agreed for, but for the freight of other articles you will have to agree, 
 and this must be your guide: if cotton freights to Liverpool, per price current, are three far- 
 thimgs pr. lb., flour must be six shillings per barrel; linseed cake, in bulk, three pounds per 
 ton, and in casks ten shillings more; and hogsheads of tobacco must be equal to ten barrels 
 of flour; wet salted hides one shilling each hide (not bundle,) and in these proportions if 
 cotton is higher or lower, per price current. 
 
 You will pay great attention to Ihe pressing of the cotton,and if not done to your satisfac¬ 
 tion object to it; if a small gratuity to the foreman will get it better done, promise them it, 
 but of course give nothing if slovenly done, and complain to the merchants, and say, as the 
 ship pays for it, you expect it to be done in the best possible manner. 
 
 Provision the ship for tbe homeward passage, that is with beef and pork. But as beef and 
 pork will be moderate in England, you must see the quality is such that it will keep, before 
 you take any very large stock. Take care and keep your sails and rigging free from chafe, 
 and as we know studding sails are often neglected, let them be well looked to, as well as 
 others. Let the provisions be served out in a proper manner, and let all have enough, but 
 nothing must be wasted; and in all things try and keep your expenses down. And do not 
 be above asking advice from men of more experience. 
 
 If Gordon, Wylie & Co. have no articles of weight for you, apply to Mr. Peter Maxwell, 
 who may have some, but you are allowed to take weight from other parties, namely: lead, 
 lard, seed or flour. Messrs. Gordon, Wylie & Co. will supply you with what cash you 
 require for ship’s use, and disburse your own money and procure the largest discounts you can. 
 
 Many accidents have occurred by vessels getting foul of each other, which, in our 
 opinion, in nine cases out of ten is owing to want ofa proper look-out. You will therefore 
 insist on those who have the charge of the watch, from time to time, that they see a proper 
 look out is kept, and no skulking allowed. 
 
 We again call your particular attention to not taking in any wet bales of cotton; if you 
 find any such, (and you must see every bale,) let them be laid aside, and call the attention of 
 the house that ships them to their condition, and if they say they are in proper condition 
 and desire you to take them, get a written order to that effect; but if they refuse to give a 
 written order, put in your Log-Book what passed, and note in the Log-Book their mark, and 
 say how many of each mark are objected to, and sign such account at the time, as well as 
 your mate; but we hope no such will be offered to you. From various attempts made to 
 throw the damages upon the ship, you must perceive how necessary it is to be on the guard 
 against these things. 
 
 We understand that olck“ flat boats” are to be purchased in New Orleans at a very low 
 rate, and you must consult with Mr. Chilton as to the best method of procuring one at as 
 little cost as possible, and with as little labor in breaking up, for the purpose of dunnaging the 
 ship’s sides, &c., &c. 
 
 We are, sir, 
 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 (Signed,) FIOLDERNESS & CHILTON. 
 
 Document marked B, referred to in the testimony ofR. H. Chilton: 
 
 Hull, 1st January, 1845. 
 
 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT : 
 
 That William Broader York goes Master of the Aldebaran, of Liverpool, and that his 
 wages are to be eight pounds per month. The cabin to be found in all necessary stores by 
 the owners. The nett cabin freight to be equally divided between the Master and owners. 
 The master to have one third cabin passage money. The master also to find his own chro¬ 
 nometer, having one guinea and a half per voyage allowed him in consideration thereof; he 
 
11 
 
 is also to be kept constantly insured from loss by the owners, for forty pounds upon his clothes 
 and wages, to commence from 16th December, 1844. These conditions to remain in force 
 so long as his services may be required, and no longer. 
 
 (Signed.) T. HOLDERNESS. 
 
 W. B. YORK. 
 
 RECORDER’S COURT—MUNICIPALITY NO. 3. 
 
 ( THIRD DAY. ) 
 
 Friday, April 18 th, 1845. 
 
 State } This cause came on this day for trial, Jacob Barker ap- 
 
 vs. > pearing for the accused, when, after hearing testimony, 
 
 W. B. York. 5 the cause was continued to to-morrow, at 1 o’clock, P. M., 
 at the instance of Mr. Chilton, in order to allow him to consult counsel 
 about producing his authority. 
 
 TESTIMONY TAKEN IN OPEN COURT- 18TII APRIL, 1845. 
 
 Rebutting Testimony. 
 
 Thomas Hill, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he is acquaint¬ 
 ed with the hand-writing of Mr. Gordon, of the firm of Gordon, Wylie & 
 Co., being shown a note signed by Alexander Gordon, addressed to Mr. 
 Jacob Barker, marked C, says that the note is signed by Mr. Gordon. 
 
 Jacor Barker, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he saw Mr. 
 Gordon sign the above note this day. 
 
 Thomas Hill, called again—Is acquainted with Captain York—has 
 known him seven or eight days—has seen him on board of the barque Alde- 
 baran—his conduct on board was very peaceable and orderly—used no 
 violence or threats towards the mate or crew—ordered the mate to order 
 the crew to return to their duty, and ordered the light sails up to dry or to 
 air, and to cover the stern boat with the sails—this happened about three 
 days ago—the answer given by Mr. Scott was: “ We do not obey your 
 orders; we do not consider you as Captain of the vessel; we have authority 
 from the British Consul to bundle all you buggars over the side, and if 
 you do not go, I muster my force, the crew, and send you where such 
 buggars ought to be.” 
 
 After being thus provoked, the Captain manifested no violence, and 
 walked on shore with Capt. Fisher, of the British ship “ William Abrams,” 
 whom they also threatened with expulsion by force, as well as witness— 
 the Captain (York) went into the cabin to get some papers, and a person 
 by the name of Mason, second mate of the barque, threw off his jacket and 
 hat and said, “Any buggar that entered the cabin would be tumbled out, 
 as the purpose of the Captain and his two friends came for, was to drink tin 3 
 wine and porter that was left.” 
 
12 
 
 Captain Fisher and witness were not allowed to enter the cabin, but 
 the second mate placed himself in the gang-way in a position of defence, 
 and used at that place the above recited language. At other interviews 
 on board of the ship, saw similar conduct and disobedience to the orders of 
 Captain York, on the part of Scott, Mason and the crew. Was on board 
 of the ship a few hours before the arrest of Captain York, with him. Cap¬ 
 tain York was not, to his knowledge or belief, on board subsequent to the 
 period above stated—he never saw, on the part of Captain York, any con¬ 
 duct by word, deed or gesture, indicating a disposition to violate the peace. 
 The condition of the ship was such that it was highly creditable to Cap¬ 
 tain York as a ship Master, she having been brought into port in the best 
 condition. Witness has been a ship Master for twenty-five years. 
 
 Thomas Fisher, Master of the British ship “William Abrams,” of 
 Greenock, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he corroborates the 
 above testimony, (with the exception that he did not hear the orders given 
 about the sails,) so far as relates to the peaceable conduct of Captain York 
 and the condition of the ship, and also the language used by Scott and 
 Mason—was in company with Captain York when he applied to a lawyer 
 for advice as to the difficult position he was placed in. The lawyer ad¬ 
 vised Captain York to return on board of his ship and attend to his duties, 
 and whatever opposition or provocation might be used towards him, to use 
 no violence, but to rely upon the courts of this country for protection. 
 
 Captain Hill called again—Was also present, and corroborates the 
 above testimony. 
 
 Captain Fishek, called again — Has seen Mr. Mason, second mate, 
 in a state of intoxication on board of the ship two or three times. Had 
 once to make application to his honor the Recorder to be allowed to pass 
 unmolested, which protection was granted about a half an hour after it 
 was asked. Witnesses’ vessel is the next ship astern of the Aldebaran. 
 
 Riciiaed Jones, master of the British barque “Ellen Bryson,” of 
 Glasgow, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is acquainted with 
 Captain York ; was on board of the ship on the day Captain York was 
 arrested; was on board between two and three o’clock, P. M. Left the 
 ship with Captain York, and was in company with him when he was ar¬ 
 rested. Captain York never used any threats or violence while on board 
 of the ship to induce witness to believe that he had any intention to 
 break the peace, or from which such a conclusion could be easily drawn 
 by others. The condition of the ship is such, that it is highly creditable to 
 Captain York ; the disposition of Scott, Mason and crew, was to resist the 
 authority of Captain York ; saw Mason intoxicated once on board of the 
 ship. 
 
 George Brock, master of the British ship Glentanner, of Aberdeen, 
 being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is acquainted with Captain 
 York; has known him for about ten days ; accompanied him (Captain 
 York) on board, and heard him give the orders about the sails ; after the 
 orders were given, the second mate seemed disposed to obey them, but 
 said he dared not. Witness made a remark to Captain York about the 
 locks being forced open ; Mr. Scott said, “we opened them all, and we 
 
13 
 
 cannot find the keys.” Scott threatened to bundle witness by the neck 
 out of the cabin of the ship. Captain Jones was with witness’ in the 
 cabin ; witness and others went on board at the request of Captain York. 
 Captain York used no threats or violence in that interview, or at any other, 
 to his knowledge. Captain York had to send for his keys, he believes, to 
 the steward. Scott’s conduct to Captain York was very abusive, he stood 
 in the cabin, holding his. arm up, and said, “I have only to call the ship’s 
 company aft, to bundle you all ashore. Mason was part of the time in 
 the cabin and part of the time on deck, and was tipsy. Witness corrobo¬ 
 rated the testimony of other witnesses, as to the condition of the ship. 
 
 Thomas Stringer being duly sworn, deposes and says, that documents 
 marked D. and E., now produced, are copies of two letters, signed by 
 Mr. Jacob Barker, and delivered to the British consul by him ; and that 
 document F. now produced, is a letter from Mr. William Mure, her Britannic 
 Majesty’s Consul, to Mr. Jacob Barker. 
 
 Note referred to in Thomas Hill’s testimony, and marked C : 
 
 Mr. Barker : 
 
 Dear Sir—At your request I have to state that Captain York called at the office of A. 
 Gordon, Wylie & Co., and reported the arrival here of the ship Aldebaran, on the 9th or 
 10th March, and we havo no complaint to make of his conduct since. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 (Signed.) A. GORDON. 
 
 Documents D, E, and F, referred to in the testimony of Thomas Stringer: 
 DOCUMENT D. 
 
 New Orleans, 14th April, 1845. 
 
 Wm. Mure, Esq., 
 
 II. B. Majesty’s Consul, &c.: 
 
 Dear Sir—I havo received your letter of this date. In reply to the allegation about 
 Captain York “violating the 46th and 47th sections of the Navigation Act, 7th and 8th, 
 Vic. Cap. 112, by which he has been guilty of a misdemeanor, and is liable to fine and 
 imprisonment ” (For the better understanding of these sections see appendix.) 
 
 I have to remark, that Captain York will be prepared to defend himself whenever 
 called to an account before a competent tribunal, to pass on the matter. 
 
 As to his having been superseded, he does not admit that he has been, orthat he can be 
 superseded in the commandot the Aldebaran, by any otherauthority than that from which 
 he derived his command; to that authority he is prepared to submit; and if, as you say, you 
 have acted with the sanction of the accredited agent of the owner, it would seem to be 
 incumbent on such agent of the owner to produce his authority; beyond which it was not 
 my intention to ask for any explanation. 
 
 To prevent the possibility of a mistake, Captain York wishes you to be informed that 
 his instructions are precise as to all the points of his duties; the observance of which disaf¬ 
 fected a portion of his crew, in which instructions is to be found the following sentence: 
 
 “ On arrival there, address the ship to Messrs. Gordon, Wylie ij' Co., who will have instruc¬ 
 tions respecting the loading of the vessel .” 
 
14 
 
 No intimation is given of any other agent, consequently he cannot recognize any otjier 
 person as the accredited agent of his owner, without the production of credentials duly 
 authenticated. Mr. Gordon states that he has not sanctioned any interference with his com¬ 
 mand; that lie is not knowing to any irregularities on the part of Captain York; and that 
 so far as he knows, he has performed his duties faithfully as commander of the Aldebaran. 
 
 I am, dear sir, 
 
 Your most ob't. servant, 
 
 [Signed.] JACOB BARKER. 
 
 DOCUMENT E. 
 
 New Orleans, 14th April, 1845. 
 
 William Mure, Esa., ^ 
 
 Consul of H. B. Majesty, Victoria, 
 
 Queen of Great Britain, &c., &c., 
 
 At New Orleans; 
 
 Dear Sir—Captain York, commander of the barque “ Aldebaran,” has called upon me 
 to aid him in restraining the interference of certain persons, in the discharge of his duties 
 as master of said vessel; and from a letter received by Captain York from Mr. R. H. 
 Chilton, you are referred to, as authorizing the proceedings complained of. 
 
 The friendly relations which have always subsisted between us induces me to notify 
 you of Captain York’s determination to apply to the courts of the United States to re¬ 
 strain all interference with his authority as master of said vessel, and to redress the 
 wrongs which he thinks have been done him—before I proceed to take out writs for the 
 arrest of such trespassers as may be found on board, or such of the crew as may refuse 
 obedience to his orders. 
 
 Should any other person than Captain York have authority to represent the owner of 
 the vessel, I presume the whole affair can be amicably settled, the first step towards 
 which will be the exhibition of such authority. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Your ob’t. serv’t, 
 
 (Signed.) JACOB BARKER. 
 
 DOCUMENT F. 
 
 British Consulate, New Orleans, April 14th, 1845, 
 
 Jacob Barker, Esa., 
 
 New Orleans: 
 
 Dear Sir—I have received your letter of this date, relative to the British barque “ Al- 
 dcbaran,” and notifying me that it is the intention of Captain York to apply to the courts 
 of the United States to restore his authority as master of said vessel. 
 
 In reply thereto, I have merely to state, that in superseding Captain York in the com ¬ 
 mand of this vessel, for irregularities in his conduct, and for violating the 46th and 4~th 
 sections of the Navigation Act, 7th and 8th Vic. Cap. 112, by which he has been guilty 
 of a misdemeanor, and is liable to fine and imprisonment, I have acted with ihe sanction 
 of the accredited agent of the owners, in this port, and I must decline any farther expla¬ 
 nation regarding my authority, as H. M. Consul, for dismissing, or sanctioning the dismis¬ 
 sal of a British captain. 
 
 I am, dear sir, 
 
 Your most obed’t serv’t, 
 
 (Signed.) WM. MURE. 
 
 H. B. M. Consul. 
 
 Note, by the Compiler. —For the proper understanding of the foregoing correspon¬ 
 dence, document E. should be read first, then Fi. and lastly D.; they would have been so 
 placed, but for the reason, that they were otherwise arranged in the Rocord, of which 
 this purports to be a faithful copy. 
 
15 
 
 RECORDER’S COURT—MUNICIPALITY NO. 3. 
 
 (fourth DAY.) ■ 
 
 Saturday , April 19th, 1845. 
 
 State } This cause came on for trial this day, Jacob Barker ap- 
 
 vs. > pearing for the accused, when the following testimony was 
 
 W. B. York, y received and proceedings were had; a “subpoena duces 
 tecum ” having been issued against Edward Mason, to produce the Log- 
 Book of the Aldebaran, the said Mason came into court with said Log- 
 Book. 
 
 TESTIMONY TAKEN IN OPEN COURT, APRIL 19TH, 1845. 
 
 Thomas Stringer, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that Captain 
 York’s chronometer was restored to him by Mr. Chilton, it having been 
 taken from him by a process of Judge Jackson’s court, at the instance of 
 R. H. Chilton, representing himself as the agent of the barque Aldebaran, 
 which suit was dismissed at the request of Mr. R. H. Chilton. Witness 
 accompanied R. H. Chilton to his office, who gave him the chronometer. 
 
 Thomas Frazer, Master of the British bargue “Pollock,” of Glasgow, 
 being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he has heard the testimony here¬ 
 tofore given, and confirms the testimony of the other witnesses, as to the 
 peaceable conduct of Captain York, the good condition of the ship, and the 
 abusive deportment of Scott and Mason to Captain York, when he went 
 on board. Was on board the afternoon of the day Captain York was ar¬ 
 rested, and Mr. Chilton and the British Consul were there at the same 
 time. Captain York’s conduct in that interview was very civil and very 
 quiet in every respect. Left the ship before Captain York—about two 
 hours after that time, he was informed by Mr. Cameron, (a merchant on 
 the Levee,) that the police officers were seeking Captain York. Captain 
 York was then in company with witness and others in the street. Cap¬ 
 tain York proceeded down Port street, and met the officer, who was on 
 horseback, just above Capt. Hill’s house; the officer told Capt. York that 
 he was his prisoner; another officer came up immediately with a warrant, 
 and they took him away to prison. Witness saw Captain York in prison, 
 locked up with other prisoners—from the dirty apparel of those in prison 
 he concluded that they were sailors. 
 
 Edward Mason, second mate of the Aldebaran, being duly sworn, de¬ 
 poses and says, that the book shown to him is the Journal or proceedings 
 of the log of the Aldebaran—a portion of it is written by himself. Under 
 date of Thursday, 27th February, 1845, the last half page shown him is 
 in his own hand-writing. Under date of Sunday, the 2d March, 1845, the 
 last half page shewn him in his own hand writing, with the exception of 
 the signature of “ W. B. York, Master,” in both instances. Under date 
 of Thursday, 13th March, 1845, all there is under that date, with the ex¬ 
 ception of the signature of Captain York, is in his own hand-writing. 
 
1G 
 
 * 
 
 The logs were not made up at the time of their dates, but as soon after as 
 he had leisure; sometimes a day or two after. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Scott, (of the Jlldebaran.) 
 
 What he has written in said Log-Book is not true, according to his no¬ 
 tions—some part of it was written on a slate, and ordered by Captain 
 York to be copied in the Log-Book—on the 28th February, 1845, at about 
 4 o’clock, P. M., he copied in the record what is said to have happened on 
 the 27 th of the same month. 
 
 Examination continued by Mr. Barker. 
 
 The entry under date March 11th, 1845, which states that Mr. Scott 
 was off duty and on shore without leave was untrue—the entry under date 
 of Sunday, the 2d March, 1845, which states that “James Scott said he 
 would do as he liked for the Master,” is incorrect; the words used on the 
 occasion were as follows: “ He should speak to whom he liked.'” Wit¬ 
 ness, on being requested to look over the book and see if he could find any 
 other errors, and particularly on the day’s work heretofore referred to, says 
 that he does not find any other error, nor does he at the moment 
 recollect of any other. Mr. Scott was put off duty as chief mate on the 
 27th February, 1845, and continued off duty until he left the barque here in 
 New Orleans. Witness left the Recorder’s -Court of his own accord, after 
 he had brought the Log-Book in company with Mr. Scott—had no conver¬ 
 sation with Mr. Scott as to the testimony he was to give in this matter. 
 Witness being shown the keys of the Aldebaran produced by Captain York, 
 and being asked if he recognized them, said that he only recognized two 
 keys, one of them as the key of his own berth, and the other as that of the 
 Captain’s room. 
 
 Captain York offered the testimony of Henry Varian, chief mate of the 
 British ship Bradshaw, of Liverpool, to prove the intemperance of Mr. 
 Scott, which the court ruled out as not pertinent to the case. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE LOG. 
 
 Thursday , 21th February, 1845, 5 A- M. 
 
 The Master came on deck and found the mate keeping the ship off her course, asked him 
 the reason; the mate then began to abuse him—Master ordered the mate to make the lee 
 studding sails up; mate said he would not, he would be d—d if he would; continued to 
 abuse the Master and left offduty. 
 
 Sunday, 2d of March, 1845. 
 
 James Scott endeavoring to keep the crew in conversation; Master told him not to keep 
 the people from their duty; James Scott said he’ would do as he liked for the Master, 
 
17 
 
 James Scott off duty and on shore without leave. 
 
 Tuesday, llth March. 1845. 
 
 Thursday 13 111 March, 1845. 
 
 Throughout these twenty-four hours thick, cloudy W. with heavy rain; employed trim¬ 
 ming and levelling the ballast and getting the water casks upon deck; carpenters as yester¬ 
 day; the Master applied to the Consul to take James Scott out of the ship, as he had done no 
 duty on board since the 27th of February, at 5 P. M. James Scott took all his clothes out 
 of the ship. 
 
 Here the evidence closed. 
 
 Mr. Barker then addressed the Court—animadverted on the testimony 
 offered, and in the most conclusive manner showed that not one particle of 
 evidence had been brought forward, or even attempted by Mr. Chilton to 
 sustain the charge he had made against Captain York, and demanded the 
 discharge of his client. He said of Mr. Chilton, that when he found the 
 current of public opinion—of every sensible ship master, both British and 
 American, or nearly so, arrayed against him for his ridiculous course in 
 this whole affair, and every effort in his power had been made, which, if 
 successful, would have blasted the fair fame of an honest, upright, and ca¬ 
 pable young Captain—he abandons the field, by asking first to be allowed 
 to withdraw his charge—then that being denied, he makes no other appear¬ 
 ance, and fails to produce the authority which he had undertaken on two 
 different occasions to do. In place of which, he appears in a morning 
 newspaper, intimating that this court is not a competent tribunal! to call 
 on him to show his authority to act as agent. Here an unparalleled case 
 is presented; an individual claims of another to surrender to him valuable 
 property of which he is in lawful possession, belonging to a third party; 
 his authority is called for, and refused; violent possession is then attempted, 
 resistance to such an act apprehended, when the power of this Court is 
 - invoked on the oath of this pretende-d agent, who describes himself in such 
 oath, as agent of the Aldebaran; his agency is disputed, and the Court of 
 his (Chilton’s) own selection requires him to produce it. To object to the 
 right of the person in possession, to see the authority of another claiming a 
 right to exercise control over property in his especial charge, before he 
 surrendered the property of a third party, or to the Court, to see the author¬ 
 ity before it recognized the agency, is too absurd to need argument. 
 
 This, if nothing else were wanting, would show that such an act of op¬ 
 pression had not been heard of in this country—in fact said Mr. B., it is 
 monstrous! He then went on to show the manner in which this pretend¬ 
 ed agent had acted throughout the whole affair—an unlawful inter¬ 
 ference without authority— men under his authority threatening to break the 
 peace themselves if Captain York did not submit —go and take an oath, 
 and put the oppressed Captain into a loathsome prison, lest they should 
 provoke him to break the peace. When your Honor considers that the 
 British Consul had been notified that Captain York would rely on the 
 Courts of the United States to repress the interruption to his command, 
 that Mr. Chilton had been an eye-witness to, and the lamb-like forbear¬ 
 ance of Captain York, pursuant to the advise of his counsel, under the most 
 aggravated provocation, the conclusion will be irresistible that the oath 
 3 
 
IS 
 
 taken was a very extraordinary one; and the attempt to impeach the Log- 
 Book so utterly tailed, that the witness (Mason) became an object of pity. 
 He (the witness) said the record, written by himself, was untrue, for this, that 
 it slated “James Scott, he said he would do as he liked for the Master,” 
 when it should have said, that James Scott said he should speak to whom he 
 liked; and that, after a close investigation, that he could not find any oilier 
 errors. 
 
 Mr. Barker here read the letter of instructions to Captain York from the 
 owners; he alluded to its forcible and able style, its explicitness, not a point 
 but what was treated upon, for all contingencies. Messrs. Gordon, Wy¬ 
 lie & Co. were appointed in terms the consignees, who say that Captain 
 York reported himself to them on his arrival, and that they had not any 
 complaint to make: the Captain is required to pay his own disbursements, 
 he is to conduct the correspondence, and attend to all the business of the 
 ship, which is detailed with great precision—no room left for doubt on any 
 point—more intelligent, able and proper instructions from an owner to his 
 Captain, had not met his (Mr. B’s-) eye. 
 
 Mr. Barker then referred to the evidence to show the strictness with 
 which he had carried out his instructions to the very letter. The Captain 
 was ordered to allow “ no skulking;” he comes on deck and finds, at the 
 dead hour of the night, that the Mate, having charge had allowed her to be 
 put several points off her course; of this he complains, and justly so, particu¬ 
 larly as his ship being then among the West India Islands, was in a dan¬ 
 gerous part ofher passage. The Mate becomes abusive, when he is told 
 to go off duty; this was the head and front of the offence of Captain York; 
 ho no doubt preserved strict discipline among his crew, as he was com¬ 
 manded to do. And here said Mr. Barker, I undertake to say that no Cap¬ 
 tain, and particularly a young man, the first voyage as commander could 
 carry his orders into effect without creating a rebellious spirit on the part 
 of the crew—there is something in the human breast that chafes against 
 authority, and especially against usurpation, and although sailors are the 
 most generous class of men on earth, they would be the most likely to rebel. 
 Mr. Barker said he spoke from experience, he was born on an island and 
 had often snuffed the sea breeze and dodged the salt water spray, and 
 although he had left his blue jacket and trousers on the ship’s forecastle 
 when a boy, yet he then contracted an attachment for nautical men which 
 has never forsaken him: he looked upon his client as of his clan, and an 
 honest Jack Tar was his admiration. 
 
 Mr Barker then went on to shew further that Captain York had obeyed 
 his orders. He was instructed, in case of necessity, to go to Mr. Richard 
 Harrison Chilton for advice about the purchase of an old fiat-boat, for dun¬ 
 nage. The purchasing of dunnage was the only thing done by Chilton, 
 before the attempt was made to supersede Captain York, according to his 
 own statement, consequently every service contemplated to be done by 
 Mr. C. had been performed. 
 
 As to the apprehensions which he had heard expressed by many British 
 ship-masters, in consequence of the British Consul’s statement, that he 
 (the Consul) had “ as much authority over a refractory captain of a vessel 
 
as ho had over a mate, a sailor, or an apprentice,” and “that England did 
 not make one law for the captain and another for the sailor;” he begged to 
 say that there was nothing to fear, and that there was no occasion lor feel¬ 
 ing sensitive, because the learned Consul had made such an exposition of 
 his supposed powers. 
 
 A moment’s reflection will tell them that Her Britannic Majesty’s Con¬ 
 sul has not a particle of authority over either. His whole authority, under 
 which he acted in this case, as quoted by himself in his letter, in evi¬ 
 dence, and which is contained in the 46th and ,47th sections of the 7th 
 and 8th Victoria, Cap. 112. Mr. B. read those sections, and said that 
 they had not the slightest allusion to such a case as this, and gave him (the 
 Consul) no more authority over a master, than they do of the command 
 of this city. A more unfortunate reference could not be made. The sec¬ 
 tions quoted are plain and easy of comprehension; and the whole bearing 
 is, lor the protection of the crews of British vessels against the tyranny 
 of the captains. Further, what is the Consul’s authority under that law? 
 why this, merely to with-hold 'permission from the captain, who may wish to 
 discharge his males, seamen, or apprentices, and if such captain should 
 discharge either in a foreign port, or at sea, without such permission, then 
 the captain subjects himself to a penalty and imprisonment on proof made 
 before the Courts of the British realm ; the law quoted, speaks of his 
 authority to send offenders home to be tried—but we have no treaty stipu¬ 
 lation to which he can invoke the aid of our Courts, that of 1815 having- 
 expired, and the “Ashburton” Treaty only provides for the return of fugi¬ 
 tives from justice from the British dominions. The British Consul has no 
 authority to punish even one of the crew should they misbehave. The cap¬ 
 tains have this power, and they alone, subject to punishment as criminals, 
 for abusing their powers. 
 
 When complaint is made to the Consul, those very sections dictate his 
 duty— lie must call into the aid of such commander (nec ding assistance to 
 subdue mutiny or insubordination, &c.,) the action of the American police, 
 and courts of law, to compel obedience. He has then no such authority 
 as has been assumed by him, and he stands condemned b ythe very act 
 under which he thought to shelter himself. The laws of England make 
 American Courts proper places to apply for redress. Mr. Chilton in a 
 published card, says lie is willing to produce his authority when called on 
 by a proper tribunal, if he did not consider this place proper, why apply 
 to it? But, said Mr. B., let us see what he says himself. (Mr. Barker 
 here read a card from him in the Bulletin of Saturday.) Mr. B. con¬ 
 tinued : the British laws, said he, makes it the duty of Consuls to 
 protect seamen, and to provide for their return when left destitute in a 
 foreign port, but contains no one clause giving them the power to inflict pun 
 ishment on an apprentice, much less on a seaman, mate, or captain! 
 
 Already has this rash act. produced its excitement in our community, 
 but let there be fifty lashes inflicted on a British sailor, by order of a Con¬ 
 sul, and Her Majesty’s representative M ill soon see such a blaze of indig¬ 
 nation burst forth throughout England, as would annihilate him the mo 
 ment he should return home, if he should dare attempt to go there. 
 
20 
 
 Mr. R.. denied that he possessed the least shadow of authority for 
 hanging the commander of a British ship adversely to her owners; even 
 if the ship was in London, at the loot of the Throne, the whole power of 
 the government is not equal to the task ! If the captain had done any 
 wrong there were means of punishing him by proper legal process. No 
 such thing had been attempted—no, the supposed sovereign power of Her 
 Britannic Majesty’s Consul here, led him to be the judge of the case, “I 
 am, and there is none else,” appears to be his determination, and under 
 these influences, exercises a power such as never was heard of in Draco, 
 nor the most tyrannical powers of the old world. No punishment of a 
 master can take place for any alleged misconduct or violation of law, with¬ 
 out a trial before his peers, nor could they in such case appoint another to 
 command. 
 
 The same regulations govern the Consuls of the United States, and 
 should such a thing occur to one of them, such conduct could not be at¬ 
 tempted, or if so, sustained ; even the President of the United States, if on 
 the spot and applied to, could not do it. 
 
 Mr. B. here related the following annecdote :—The Emperor of Rus¬ 
 sia when on an aquatic excursion took a fancy to the ship United States, 
 then in the roads of Cronstadt, which had been sent there by him (Mr. 
 Barker), and offered the Captain fifty thousand dollars for her, which the 
 Captain agreed to take on condition that he could get clear of a freight 
 he had agreed to take for Bordeaux. The Emperor sent his Minister to 
 negotiate with the merchant, who agreed to release the ship for a bonus of 
 thirty thousand rubles, giving three days’ time for the Admiralty to examine 
 the ship and conclude the bargain; their report was favorable ; the Minis¬ 
 ter notified the merchant, on the fourth day, that he would pay the thirty 
 thousand rubles, when the merchant declined, saying, that the time allowed 
 for an answer had elapsed. The Minister reported to the Emperor of 
 that, which he considered a great indignity, expecting an Ukase com¬ 
 manding her surrender; in place of which the Emperor said “ individual 
 rights must not he invaded, tell the Captain to complete his loading for 
 France, go there, deliver his cargo, and collect the freight for the benefit 
 of his owners, and proceed to the United States, or otherwise use the ship 
 as he thought proper, until the navigation should the next season be free 
 from Ice, when he could return and deliver the ship ; he would then cause 
 her to be received and't.he aforesaid price paid for her ” all of which was 
 done ; in relation to which an incident occurred indicative of the Emper¬ 
 or’s quick perception, promptness of action, and great regard to the con¬ 
 venience of individuals with whom his nation dealt. He, when on another 
 aquatic excursion, perceiving that the Captain had not been paid, signed a 
 warrant on the treasury for the price agreed upon, on board the steam 
 boat, and caused it forthwith to be handed to him. 
 
 Mr. B., after a few more remarks, and claiming Captain York’s dis¬ 
 charge, and the liability of the prosecutor and his confederates to be taken 
 up for disturbing the peace themselves, then submitted the case to the 
 court for its decision.) 
 
21 
 
 DECISION OF THE COURT. 
 
 There being no just cause of apprehension of an intention on the part 
 of the accused to commit a breach of the peace, proven in this case, the 
 complaint is therefore dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the 
 parties. 
 
 (Signed,) G.' W. LEWIS, Recorder. 
 
 19 111 April, 1845 
 
 CLERK’S CERTIFICATE. 
 
 I, John Eugene Layet, Secretary of the Recorder of Municipality 
 No. 3, of the city of New Orleans, do hereby certify, that the above and 
 foregoing twenty-five and a half pages, do contain a full and complete 
 transcript of all the proceedings had, as well as of all the testimony adduced 
 on the trial of the cause wherein the State of Louisiana is complainant and 
 W. B. York is defendant, instituted before said Recorder, and now on the 
 records of said office. 
 
 In testimony whereof I have hereunto signed my name and affixed the 
 seal of said Court, at the city of New Orleans, this 21st day 
 ( L g } of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
 
 ( $ and forty-five, and of the Independence of the United States 
 
 the 69th year. 
 
 (Signed,) . J. E. LAYET, Secretary. 
 
 RECORDER’S CERTIFICATE. 
 
 I, George Washington Lewis, Recorder of Municipality No. 3, of the 
 city of New Orleans, do hereby certify, that John Eugene Layct is Secre¬ 
 tary of the Recorder of Municipality Nb. 3, of the city of New Orleans, 
 and that the signature “ J. E. Layet, Secretary,” to the foregoing certifi¬ 
 cate is in the proper hand-writing of him the said Secretary; to his official 
 acts as such, full faith and credit are due and owing; and I do further cer¬ 
 tify, that his attestation to the foregoing certificate is in due form of law. 
 
 Given under my hand, at the city of New Orleans, this 21st day of 
 April, 1845. 
 
 (Signed,) G. W. LEWIS, Recorder. 
 
 Note. —Such words and sentences as are inserted in parenthesis in the foregoing are 
 not in the copy of the record from which this is taken. OB. 
 
22 
 
 It will be seen from the foregoing proceedings that the attempt to cast 
 odium on the character of Captain York, by imputing to him the charge of 
 being suspected as contemplating a breach ot the peace, was a signal 
 failure, and that he passed through that ordeal triumphantly; this, the reader 
 will discover, was but the commencement of the trials in store for him. 
 The next step taken to accomplish the designs of Mr. Chilton, to get the 
 vessel away from his command, was a suit in the United States District 
 Court, libelliug the barque Aldebaran, setting forth that Captain York un¬ 
 lawfully detained the vessel from her owner, represented by his (so styling 
 himself) accredited agent—but here again, as in the Recorder’s Court, the 
 proof of such authority was not produced by his accuser, and although it 
 will be discovered that the barque was finally carried off, in defiance of 
 law, and contempt of the authority of the Court— and under the command 
 of Benjamin Turner , late Male of the British ship Provincialist, of Lon¬ 
 donderry, still Captain York was again successful, for the rule was dis¬ 
 missed by the Court, and soon afterwards his persecutors rather than go fur¬ 
 ther into the matter, obtained an order from Judge McCaleb, giving them 
 leave, on payment of costs, to dismiss the libel suit. 
 
 It is thought proper by the compiler, to call particular attention to the 
 following certificates of old, respectable and well known ship masters. To 
 dilate upon their contents would be superfluous, they speak for themselves, 
 and so speaking say volumes in favor of a young commander. But to the 
 certificates, Comment is unnecessary. 
 
 CERTIFICATES OF SHIP MASTERS 
 
 AS TO THE APPEARANCE AND CONDITION OF THE BARQUE ALDEBARAN, 
 AND THE CONDUCT OF CAPTAIN YORK. 
 
 , New Orleans, April 12th, 1845. 
 
 Having been called upon by Captain W. B. York, of the" Barque “ Aldebaran,” of Liver 
 pool, to survey her and give my opinion as to her state, I, in conjunction with other Masters 
 consider her to be in a state highly creditable to the aforesaid W. B. York; and having been 
 in his company frequently since his arrival in the port of New Orleans, I believe him to be 
 a sober, persevering, and competent ship master. 
 
 (Signed,) JOHN BROWN, 
 
 Master of the ship Gertrude of Liverpool. 
 
 We, the undersigned, British ship masters at present in this port, do hereby certify, and 
 will hereafter in any other port corroborate the contents of the preceding certificate of Cap- 
 
lain John Brown, Master of the British ship Gertrude, as regards the character, conduct, 
 and competency of Captain W. B. York. 
 
 New Orleans, the 14th April, 1845. 
 
 (Signed,) R. Sedgwick, ship Coromondelof Liverpool. 
 
 George Brock, ship Glentanner of Aberdeen. 
 
 William Baciie, ship Yorkshire of Bristol. 
 
 Thomas Fisiier, ship William Abrams of Greenock. 
 
 Peter Clark, barque Agneda ofGreenock. 
 
 James Adams, ship Canada of St. Johns. 
 
 Peter Barclay, ship Elizabeth of Belfast. 
 
 Simon Graham, barque Grampion of Liverpool. 
 
 John Stencer, barque Pursuit of Liverpool. 
 
 Richard E. Jones, barque Ellen Bryson of Glasgow. 
 
 John Flood, barque Susan of Liverpool. 
 
 James Brown, ship Gossypium of Liverpool. 
 
 A. McPherson, barque Eleanor of Glasgow’. 
 
 James Rodger, ship Araminta of Belfast. 
 
 Alexander IIossack, barque New York of Greenock. 
 
 Thomas Frazer, barque Pollock of Glasgow. 
 
 David White, barque Broom of Glasgow. 
 
 Thomas Brocklebank, ship Columbine of Liverpool. 
 
 George Welch, barque Lord Sandon of Liverpool. 
 
 Henry A- Varian, (mate) of the ship Bradshaw do. 
 
 D. Williams, ship Provincialist of Londonderry. 
 
 J. Davidson, ship Intrinsic of Belfast. 
 
 A. Clarice, ship Amoy of Belfast. 
 
 This is to certify that on this day, in our presence, on board the British barque Alde- 
 baran, Captain W. B. York directed Edward Mason the second mate of said barque to 
 bring the light sails on deck and air them, to cover the stern boat with a sail, and make up 
 the quarter deck awning, whereupon he refused to do so, and said he dare not obey the or¬ 
 ders of Captain York, and was very abusive. Captain York attempted to go into the cabin 
 when a person by the name of .1 ames Scott interposed to prevent the same, and threatened 
 to put Captain York and the subscribers out of the said vessel if Captain York persisted in 
 directing the conduct of the business of the ship, and the said Edward Mason appeared to 
 be the instigator of the disorderly conduct we witnessed on board of said vessel. 
 
 New Orleans, 14th April, 1845. 
 
 (Signed,) THOMAS FISHER, 
 
 Master of the ship William Abrams. 
 
 (Signed,) RICHARD E. JONES, 
 
 Master of barque Ellen Bryson. 
 
 (Signed,) GEORGE BROCK, 
 
 Master of ship Glentanner. 
 
 The attention of the reader is now directed to the proceedings which 
 took place in reference to the libel case. 
 
FOli THE 
 
 DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. 
 
 I’homas Hunter Holderness 
 vs. 
 
 British barque Aldebaran 
 and 
 
 William Broader York. 
 
 J 
 
 United States 
 District Court. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN OPEN COURT. 
 
 Thursday-, 24th April. 
 
 Present: —His Honor Theodore H. M’Caleb, Judge. 
 
 COPY OF LIBEL. 
 
 To the Hon. Theodore H. M’Caleb, Judge of the United States 
 District Court, for the District of Louisiana: 
 
 The libel and complaint of Thomas Hunter Holderness, of Liverpool, 
 England, merchant, against the British barque Aldebaran, whereof Wil¬ 
 liam Broader York late was, and now pretends to be, master, her tackle, 
 apparel and furniture, and against the said York, of Hull, England, lint 
 now, together with the said barque, within the jurisdiction of this honorable 
 Court; and also, against all other persons lawfully intervening for their in¬ 
 terest in the said barque, in a cause of possession, civil and maritime. 
 
 And, thereupon, the said Holderness alleges, and articulately propounds, 
 as follows: 
 
 First. —That the libellant is the sole and registered owner of the said 
 barque, Aldebaran, a vessel of about six hundred and nine tons, British 
 measure, now lying in the port of New Orleans, and for some time past 
 has had the possession and ownership thereof, and ought now to have 
 possession and control of the same. 
 
 Second. —That the possession of the said barque is now wrongfully 
 with-held, from the agent of the libellant, here present and representing 
 the owner, to-wit: Richard H. Chilton, by the said William B. York, alle¬ 
 ging himself to be entitled to the possession thereof, as captain, although 
 the said York has been long since deprived of his command, .and super¬ 
 seded for gross, violent, improper and illegal conduct, by the action of said 
 Agent and William Mure, Esq., British Consul at the [tort of New Orleans, 
 acting in his official capacity. 
 
25 
 
 Third. —That the said Richard H. Chilton is the title and lawful agent 
 of the owner, and as such, duly authorised and empowered to act in the 
 premises. 
 
 Fourth. —That Messrs. Gordon, Wylie & Co., merchants of this city, 
 are now loading the said barque, and have notified the agent of libellant 
 that they will protest against her as unseaworthy in case the said York 
 should proceed in her to sea, as captain or commander. 
 
 Fifth. —That the action and jurisdiction of this Court are invoked 
 herein, at the instance and request of the said William Mure, representing 
 the British Government at the said port of New Orleans. 
 
 Sixth. —That all and singular the premises are true and within the 
 Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction of this honorable Court, in verification 
 whereof, if denied, the libellant craves leave to refer to the depositions 
 and other proofs to be by him exhibited in this cause. 
 
 Wherefore, the libellant prays that process, in due form of law, accord¬ 
 ing to the course of Courts of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction, may 
 issue against the said barque Aldebaran, her tackle, apparel and furniture, 
 now lying in the port of New Orleans, as aforesaid; and that the said 
 William Broader York, and all other persons having, or pretending to 
 have any right, title or interest in the said barque, may be cited to appear 
 before this honorable Court, and to show cause why possession of the said 
 barque Aldebaran should not be delivered to the libellant, or his agent, 
 the said Richard H. Chilton, as entitled to the sole possession thereof, against 
 the said William Broader York, and all others lawfully intervening; and 
 that this honorable Court would be pleased to decree the possession of the 
 said barque to the libellant, or to his said agent Richard H. Chilton, and 
 to administer such other relief in the premises as shall to law and justice 
 appertain ; and also, to condemn the said York, and all persons interven¬ 
 ing for their interest in the said barque, in costs. 
 
 (Signed.) R. H. CHILTON, Agent. 
 
 WINTHROP, 
 
 Proftdr for Libellant. 
 
 Personally appeared, Richard II. Chilton, Agent for the libellant, whf) 
 being sworn, saith that the facts stated in the foregoing libel are true. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed, this 22d day of April, 1845. 
 
 (Signed.) N. II. JENNINGS, Cleric. 
 
 COPY OF CITATION TO CAPTAIN YORK. 
 
 ✓ 
 
 United States Distict Court—Sitting in and for the District of 
 
 Louisiana. 
 
 To William B. York , Master of the British Barque Aldebaran , now at 
 New Orleans: 
 
 You arc hereby summoned lo comply with the prayer of the annexed petition, or file yon- 
 answer thereto in writing, in the office of the Clerk of the District Court of the United 
 
 4 
 
States, fortlio Eastern District of Louisiana, in the city of New Orleans, witliin ten days 
 from service hereof, or judgment will be given against you by default, 
 t 1 Witness, the Honorable Theodore II. McCaleb, Judge of said Court, at 
 
 < L. S. > the city of New Orleans, this 22d day of April, 1845, and 69th year of the 
 t ) Independence of the United States. 
 
 (Signed,) N. R. JENNINGS, Clerk. 
 
 COPY OF SEIZURE. 
 
 The President of the United States of America, to the Marshal of the Dis¬ 
 trict of Louisiana, or to his lawful Deputy— Greeting : 
 
 You are hereby commanded forthwith to seize, and into your possession take, the British 
 Barque Aldebaran, her tackle, apparel and furniture, now libelled by Thomas Hunter 
 Holder ness, in the District Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana, that 
 you do cite and admonish the owner or owners, and all and every other person or persons, 
 having or pretending to have, any right, title, in or to the same, to be and appear before a 
 District Court of the United States, for the District aforesaid, to be holden at the city of 
 New Orleans, on or before the third Monday from the service hereof, to show cause, if any 
 they have, or can, why the said British Barque Aldebaran, her tackle, apparel and furni¬ 
 ture should not be delivered to libellant, agreeably to the prayer of the libellant; and how 
 you shall have executed this warrant, that you make return according to law. 
 
 1 Witness, the Honorable Theodore IL. McCaleb, Judge of the said Court, 
 L. S. 1 this twenty-second day of April, 1845, and the 69th year of the Independence 
 ) of the United States. 
 
 (Signed,) N. R. JENNINGS, Clerk. 
 
 COPY OFilULE. 
 
 Themas Hunter Holderness, 
 vs. 
 
 British Barque Aldebaran and Wm. Broader York. 
 
 On motion of John Winthrop, Esq., Proctor for libellant, it is ordered that William 
 Broader York show cause, on Thursday, the 24th April, 1845, at 10 o’clock A. M.,if any he 
 have, or can, why the barque Aldebaran, libelled herein, her tackle, apparel and furni¬ 
 ture, should not be given up to said libellant, or his agent, Richard H. Chilton, upon giving 
 bond, with good and sufficient security, in such sum as the Court may direct. 
 
 U. S. District 
 Court. 
 
 The rule founded on the petition and oath of Richard Harrison Chilton, 
 came on this day for trial. John Winthrop, Esq. appeared as Proctor for 
 the libellant, ahd Messrs. Barker and Lacy, Proctors for the respondent, 
 William B. York, Master of the said barque Aldebaran. 
 
 Botli Mr. Chilton and Captain York appeared in court. 
 
27 
 
 Mr. Barker opened the case, by offering to file an answer to the rule; its 
 ponderous appearance induced Mr. Winthrop to object. 
 
 Mr. WiNTHRor here interrupted the Proctor for the respondent by cal¬ 
 ling the attention of the Court to the answer proposed to be filed by the gen¬ 
 tleman, stating that he had looked over the sheets which composed it, and 
 could find little that was relevant to the present issue, he thefore objected 
 to its being received as an answer to the rule, saying that it appeared more 
 like an answer to the libel than to the rule; that he (Mr. W.) had ten days 
 to except to the answer to the libel; that he intended to except, and to have 
 all such parts as were not in response to the libel stricken out—that he did 
 not come there to speak to Bunkum—he had no private reporter in 
 Court—nor had he a correspondent in New York to herald his fame—or 
 report his proceedings to Lord Aberdeen, nor did he intend to go now into 
 the merits of the case, and thought that His Honor, as well as himself, might 
 not survive this suit, that there appeared to be no prospect ofa termination of 
 it, if such strange practice in admiralty was tolerated—that this was a sim¬ 
 ple rule to show cause why the owner should not take possession of his 
 property, by giving bonds to abide the issue of the suit. The mass of mat¬ 
 ter produced by the gentleman as an answer to it, said Mr. W., has as 
 much to do with this case, as the clock in this Court, which marks the 
 time used in discussing it. Mr. W. contended that no claim had been 
 filed for the property, and that it was a settled rule in Admiralty proceed¬ 
 ings, that no counsel could be heard in opposition to the petition until a 
 claim had been filed. 
 
 Mr. Barker did not question the Proctor’s familiarity with Admiralty 
 practice—did not profess to know any thing about it himself, except that 
 lie knew that common sense and common justice must be the governing 
 rule. His client certainly intended to transmit to Lord Aberdeen, or 
 some other branch of his government, an account from the records of the 
 Courts, of the wrong done him. 
 
 Mr. Barker then begged the gentleman on the other side to be patient 
 until the answer should be read, when he would find that it contained a 
 claim for the property. Mr. B. said he did not come here to argue the 
 cause, but to see that the testimony and facts of the case were placed fully 
 before the Court, after which the learned Proctor associated with him, 
 (Judge Lacy,) would make whatever argument should bo deemed neces¬ 
 sary; that his client had been served with notice of the libel, of the rule, 
 and the copy of the petition of Richard Harrison Chilton, all at the same 
 time, and did not well perceive how they could be separated; but, be that 
 as it may, he should file the papers as the answer of Captain York to the 
 rule, and when read, the court would not consider such parts, if any there 
 should be, which did not apply to the case. 
 
 The Court here expressed its impatience to hear the document read, say¬ 
 ing that it could not perceive the force of the objection until it knew the 
 contents of the paper, when nothing would be considered which was not 
 in response to, or called for by the petition. 
 
 Mr. Barker then filed the answer and went on to read it. When Mr. 
 B. had got to that part, and was about to read the card of Mr. Chilton, pub 
 
28 
 
 fished in the Bulletin newspaper, the Proctor for libellant objected—and 
 the Court inquired what that had to do with the case. Mr. Barker replied, 
 that they pul themselves on their right to refuse to recognize an agent, 
 until such agent exhibited his authority; this advertisement admitted that a 
 sight of the authority had been demanded on the part of Captain York, and 
 refused by Mr. Chilton, and therefore applicable to the case. On which 
 the Court allowed the reading to go on. That part which spoke of Mr. 
 Chilton’s readiness to produce his authority when properly called upon by 
 a competent tribunal being read, the Proctor for Captain York remarked, 
 that its further reading was unnecessary, as it was not material to the 
 issue, the Proctor for libellant said - ‘go on, let us have the whole of it,’W- 
 the reading was continued, with a declaration by Mr. B. that the other part 
 of the statement was erroneous. 
 
 The answer is in the words and figures following : 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 Thomas Hunter Holderness, 
 
 vs. 
 
 British Barque Aldebaran. 
 
 To ihe Hon. Theodore H. McCaleb, Judge of the District Court of the 
 United States for the District of Louisiana: 
 
 The answer, or response, of William Broader York, respectfully repre¬ 
 sents to this honorable Court, and admits that he is Master of the British 
 barque “ Aldebaran,” of Liverpool; that he is of Hull, in England; that he, 
 together with the said barque, her tackle, apparel and furniture, are within 
 the jurisdiction of this honorable Court; that ho is in possession of the same, 
 subject to the authority of this Gourt; that before his appointment the said 
 vessel may have been in the possession and ownership of the libellant, but 
 does not know particularly. 
 
 If Thomas Hunter Holderness, of Liverpool, is, as this respondent be¬ 
 lieves, the sole and only owner; he knows not on what terms Thomas 
 Holderness, of Hull, received her from such owner. 
 
 He found her in possession of Thomas Holderness, of Hull; received 
 her from him, then or soon after, subject to a charter to be carried into 
 effect through the agency of Messrs. Gordon, Wylie & Co., of this city, 
 to all whom this respondent probably has to account for his possession and 
 stewardship , and he denies that any or either of them are otherwise in 
 possession, and refuses to surrender his possession and command, until the 
 vessel returns to Hull. 
 
 When a claim on him was first made, he was willing to do so, to any 
 person duly authorised to represent the owner, waiving his legal rights; 
 and for which purpose he demanded to sec the credentials of the person 
 pretending to be authorised; this being denied him, and a most relentless 
 war commenced, and which continues to be carried on, by Richard Harri¬ 
 son Chilton, the pretended agent, this respondent now puts himself on his 
 
 ■ U. S. District Court. 
 
20 
 
 legal rights, and insists that so long as he continues to prosecute the voy¬ 
 age agreeably with his instructions, there is no power competent to remove 
 him from his command until the voyage has terminated. 
 
 That as to R. II. Chilton’s authority to represent the owner of the British 
 barque Aldebaran, he knows nothing beyond this, that the following sen¬ 
 tence is to be found in his sailing orders : 
 
 “ We understand that ‘old flaiboats ’ are to be purchased in New Or¬ 
 leans at a very low rate, and you must consult with Mr. Chilton as to 
 the best method of procuring one at as little cost as possible, and with as 
 little labor in breaking up, for the purpose of dunnaging the ship’s sides, 
 <Sfc., <fc.” 
 
 This respondent further answering says, when Mr. Chilton claimed to 
 have the authority further to act, this respondent, by his counsel, respect¬ 
 fully asked through H. B. M. Consul, (as will more fully appear by the cor¬ 
 respondence hereunto annexed) a sight of his authority, in place of produ¬ 
 cing which, this respondent was thrown into prison, at the instance of the 
 said Chilton, who endeavored to excite rebellion among the crew ; and in 
 the discussion of the cause of his confinement before a court of ms (Chil¬ 
 ton’s) own selection, the said Chilton was required to produce his 
 authority; to enable him to do so the Court was twice adjourned, and in 
 place of his exhibiting, either to the Court or this respondent, his authority, 
 a card appears in the Commercial Bulletin newspaper, of Saturday, the 
 19th instant, in the words and figures following : 
 
 BARK ALDEBARAN. 
 
 TO THE EDITOR OF THE BULLETIN. 
 
 My attention has been directed to several paragraphs in the morning papers in relation 
 to this vessel, and an investigation now going on before Recorder Lewis, Iconsequent 
 upon an affidavit made before him. 
 
 I have only to state that these articles contain a one-sided statement of the affair 
 dressed up for the public eye, as I am led to suppose, by the counsel who appeared for 
 Captain York. 
 
 It is wholly untrue that the Consul cited any authorities to show the capacity in which 
 he acted, or the power with which he was clothed. Indeed, his counsel, Mr. Winthrop, 
 expressly advised him not to do so. Mr. Mure simply statcxl that he acted according to 
 the instructions of his Government, and incompliance with the acts of Parliament; and 
 that his only object in saying a word, was for the information of a crowd of British cap' 
 tains, attracted there no doubt by the counsel for the Captain, and the flourish of trumpets 
 with which the intended investigation was announced. 
 
 I state this much injustice to the British Consul, and have only to add for myself, that 
 1 am ready to show my authority as Agent, when properly called upon, before a com¬ 
 petent tribunal. R- H. CHILTON. 
 
 Richard H. Chilton being in court when the Consul’s letter was given 
 in evidence, giving authorities, it is strange that he should within two days 
 thereafter have hazarded such a declaration, viz: 
 
 “It is wholly untrue that the Consul cited authorities to show the capa¬ 
 city in which he acted, or the power with which he was clothed .” 
 
 Here is seen the same pertinacious refusal to produce the authority, in¬ 
 timating that the court to which he himseif appealed had no right to require 
 
30 
 
 its production, and that this respondent had no right to see it before he 
 delivered over the ship and cargo, of the probable value of seventy-five 
 thousand dollars, belonging to third parties, of which he was in lawful pos¬ 
 session. 
 
 As to who is the registered owner, this respondent begs leave to refer to 
 the register itself, nowin the possession of the British Consul—he,however, 
 admits that the register is not any legal evidence between individuals 
 claiming in favor of the possessor ; the whole object of the register being 
 to establish the national character of the vessel, and to prevent frauds on 
 the navigation acts of England, with which the United States Courts have 
 nothing to do. 
 
 Until this respondent heard Mr. Chilton swear before^the Recorder of the 
 Third Municipality as a witness in the aforesaid investigation, that he 
 (Chilton) “believed that there were other owners than the one mentioned 
 in the register,” he had no information on the subject, except what is 
 herein stated. This respondent thinks that the said Richard H. F Chilton 
 must be mistaken in this, as he cannot believe that the registered owner 
 would swear falsely, or expose the ship to confiscation, which he is 
 informed and believes would be the case if all the names of the owners 
 were not inserted in the Register. 
 
 This evidence just alluded to, was taken down in part by the clerk of 
 the Court, and stricken out by order of the Recorder, on motion of this 
 respondent’s counsel, because a witnesses belief was not legal evidence. 
 
 This respondent received the barque Alderbaran and appurtenences 
 from Mr. Thomas Holderness, of Hull; was by him appointed to her 
 command ; the said Holderness signed the contract with this respondent, 
 individually, and delivered to him his orders for the voyage, signed by 
 Holderness &. Chilton ; of which firm this respondent supposed the said 
 Holderness the principal, and of which orders a copy is hereunto 
 appended. (For the letter of instructions to Captain York, see page 9). 
 
 This respondent has always understood that Thomas Hunter Holderness 
 of Liverpool, was the son of Thomas Holderness of Hull, but what 
 connection they have in business, or what interest, if any, the son 
 has in this vessel, this respondent has no knowledge or information beyond 
 what appears on the Register, and what he heard the said Chilton testify 
 to ; he therefore requires the libellant to make out his declarations by legal 
 proof. • 
 
 This respondent further answering, denies that the said barque is now 
 wrongfully with-held from the agent of the libellant, but insists that she is 
 in possession of respondent, the duly authorised agent of the owner. 
 
 This respondent denies that the said Richard II. Chilton is the agent 
 Tor the said owner; and he denies that he has been superseded “for gross, 
 violent, improper and illegal conduct,” or for any other cause, or that he 
 could be superseded by the action of the said Chilton, or the said William 
 Mure, Esq., Her Britannic Majesty’s Consul at the port of New Orleans. 
 So far from this, the said Consul on the very day before the filing of the 
 said libel, recognised this respondent as master of the said Aldebaran, and 
 authorised him to discharge the chief mate, recommending this respondent 
 
31 
 
 to submit the whole matter to his owner on his return home, as will more 
 fully appear by his two letters, which, together with the letter of this re¬ 
 spondent, refered to therein, were in words and figures following : 
 
 New Orleans, 18th April, 1845. 
 
 William Mure, Esq., 
 
 H. B. Majesty’s Consul: 
 
 Dear Sir—You having satisfied me that I was in error in supposing I could discharge 
 the mate of the barque Aldebaran, under my command, without the consent of H. B. 
 Majesty’s Consul, I have agqin to request your consent to my discharging Mr- Scott, 
 chief mate of said vessel, for reasons heretofore assigned to you, and because I do not 
 think that harmony could prevail on the homeward voyage, if he should be continued. 
 
 The error of opinion under which I was laboring on the subject, led me, when you 
 refused your consent, to the use of intemperate expressions to you, near the post office, 
 which expressions I withdraw, and regret having made use of them. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 (Signed ) WM. B. YORK, 
 
 Master of barque Aldebaran. 
 
 British Consulate, New Orleans, April 21st, 1845. 
 
 Captain W. B. York: 
 
 Sir—I have received your letter of the 18th inst., in which you have expressed regret 
 for certain intemperate expressions made use of towards me, in reference to my refusal to 
 consent to the discharge of the mate of the Aldebaran; I have merely to say that I accept 
 the apology tendered, which, however, was unnecessary, as I do not permit my private 
 feelings to influence my public duties. 
 
 In regard to my consent to your now discharging the mate, I can only agree to your 
 doing so, upon the understanding that this is not to compromise or prejudice any pro¬ 
 ceedings which may be taken by him or others in the Courts of Law in England. 
 
 I am, sir, 
 
 Yours, &c., 
 
 (Signed.) WM. MURE, 
 
 H. B. M. Consul. 
 
 British Consulate, New Orleans, April 21st, 1845, 
 Sir—In handing you the enclosed letter I have merely to state that I act in this matter 
 passively, having no desire that the interests of the ownersof the barque, or the charter¬ 
 ers should suffer by delay in offering opposition to a jurisdiction over my Consular du¬ 
 ties by tribunals whose power in the matter, I cannot acknowledge. 
 
 The best course for you to pursue is, to lay the whole matter before the owners on 
 your arrival in England. 
 
 I am, sir, 
 
 Your, <Scc., 
 
 (Signed.) WM. MURE. 
 
 H. B. M. Consul. 
 
 -Whether “the action and jurisdiction of this Court are invoked herein at 
 the instance and request of the said William Mure , representing the British 
 Government at the said Port of New Orleans, ” or not, this respondent does 
 not know. The understanding between this respondent and the said Con¬ 
 sul, when the aforesaid letters were agreed upon and delivered, was that 
 he, the said Consul, should not oppose any farther objection to this respon- 
 
32 
 
 dent’s remaining’ in the command and returning to Hull in the barque Aldo- 
 karan, and that all further legal proceedings should be confined, so far as 
 he or the British Government were concerned, to the Courts of England; 
 leaving to Richard Harrison Chilton to pursue whatever course he thought 
 proper. On the evening of the 21st April, the British Consul sent word to 
 this respondent’s counsel, that Richard H. Chilton intended to proceed fur¬ 
 ther in the matter, which he, the said British Consul said he should en¬ 
 deavor to dissuade him from; and that, so far as he was concerned, he would 
 not have any thing more to do in the matter; this he repeated to the coun¬ 
 sel of your respondent on the-22d instant, about half past ten o’clock, P. 
 M., superadding that he ha,d washed his hands clear of the matter with ap¬ 
 parent satisfaction, as this respondent has been informed, and believes. 
 
 This respondent further admits, that Messrs. Gordon, Wylie & Co., 
 merchants of this city, are now loading the said barque; whether or not 
 they have said to the said Chilton, “ that they will ■protest against her (the 
 barque) as unseaworthy in case the said Yorlt should proceed in her to sea, 
 as Captain or Commander, ” this respondent has no knowledge. Mr. 
 Gordon, the principal of said firm, having always declared himself satisfied 
 with this respondent, and on the 18th instant, gave a letter to be used in 
 Court, resisting the complaint of the said Chilton, in words and figures 
 following: 
 
 Mr. Barker : 
 
 Dear Sir—At your request I have to state that Captain York called at the office of Gor¬ 
 don, Wylie & Co. and reported the arrival here of the ship Aldebaran on the 9th or 10th 
 March, and we have no complaint to make of his conduct since. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 (Signed,) A. GORDON. 
 
 Subsequently understanding that Richard H. Chilton had been endeavor¬ 
 ing to exert an influence over the said Mr. Gordon, and that in conse¬ 
 quence Mr. Mure, the Consul, wished to see Mr. Gordon before he gave 
 the promised letter to Captain York, this respondent proposed to accompa¬ 
 ny the Consul to Mr. Gordon, in order to ascertain what new difficulty had 
 sprung up, when said British Consul refused to accompany this respondent 
 to the office of Mr. Gordon; whereupon this respondent waited on Mr. Gor¬ 
 don, from whom he received a letter, in words and figures following, as 
 near as he can relate them, having been unable to procure the original or 
 a copy thereof: 
 
 New Orleans, 21st April, 1845. 
 
 Wm. Mure, Esq. 
 
 Dear Sir—Captain York, of the British Barque Aldebaran, has promised not to ship any 
 mate who shall not be approved by us, which is all we can reasonably ask. 
 
 Dear sir. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 (Signed,) GORDON, WYLIE & Co. 
 
 [Note —This letter may be signed A. Gordon, instead of Gordon, Wylie & Co.] 
 
 Hence, this respondent cannot believe that the said Chilton has comprehend¬ 
 ed the true meaning of I he notification he alleges to have received from the 
 said Gordon, Wylie & Co., and prays that the said Chilton be required to 
 
33 
 
 produce such notification on the trial of this cause, or otherwise to establish 
 this, and all other of his allegations, by strict and legal proof. As to the 
 libellants’ giving bail, this respondent being in possession, bail would be no 
 satisfaction to him—the underwriters and all others concerned may hold 
 him answerable, whether such bail proved good or otherwise—many of 
 whom are not represented here in that matter, and it is respectfully con¬ 
 tended that however much power, the Court may have to hold the property 
 until final judgment, that it is not competent to take the property from the 
 person in lawful possession, and surrender it to others on bonds. 
 
 Whereupon this respondent prays that the officers of this Court be re¬ 
 quired to return the said barque, her tackle, apparel and furniture, to this 
 respondent, and for general relief, in and about the premises. 
 
 And as in duty-bound, this respondent will ever pray. 
 
 (Signed,) WILLIAM BROADER YORK. 
 
 Jacob Barker, Proctor. 
 
 William Broader York, being duty sworn, saith that the facts, so far as they come 
 within his own knowledge, stated above, are true, and so far as ho derived them from 
 others he believes them to be true. 
 
 (Signed,) WILLIAM BROADER YORK. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 24th April, 1845. 
 
 N. R. JENNINGS, Clerk. 
 
 [Note —The Appendix to this answer contains the letter of instructions from Messrs. 
 Holderness & Chilton to Captain York, as found on page 9; also, the letter of Mr. Barker to 
 the British Consul, marked document D,as found on page 13; the letter of the British Con¬ 
 sul marked document F, as found on page 14; and Mr. Barker’s letter to the British Consul 
 in reply, marked document E, as found on page 14. Reference to all which is respectfully 
 directed.] 
 
 Mr. Barker now called upon the libellant to sustain the allegations of 
 his petition. 
 
 Mr. Winthrof repeated that he did not come there to try the case, and 
 objected to many parts of the answer of respondent, as being foreign to the 
 point at issue. He insisted that for the purposes of the rule before the 
 Court, the Court was bound to consider all the allegations in the petition 
 as true; and that as a matter of right the prayer of the petition in the libel 
 should be granted. 
 
 Mr. Barker replied, denying the position assumed by Mr. Winthrop, 
 and insisted that if such was the fact the rule was a nullity; it called Cap¬ 
 tain York into Court to say why the prayer of the petitioner should not be 
 granted; he answers and says, because the allegations on which the prayer 
 is founded are untrue, and requiring the libellant to sustain them by proof; 
 and further, if true, they do not form any reason for taking the property 
 from the person in lawful possession; that no agent could do this without 
 
 ERRATA.—On page 32, 10th line, instead of “about half past ten o'clock, P. M.," 
 read “about half past one o'clock, P- M.” 
 
 On page 27, 23d line, alter the word “ proceedings,” in Mr. Winthrop’s remarks, add 
 the words—so as to read, “with which he was well acquainted,” that no counsel. &c. 
 
 5 
 
exhibiting his authority. For that reason, if no other existed, these pro¬ 
 ceedings should be dismissed, as the agent had refused to exhibit his authority 
 attempting to shield himself under the shallow pretence that he had not 
 been required to do so by competent authority. Mr. B. insisted that Cap¬ 
 tain York, being in lawful possession, and so averred in the bill of com¬ 
 plaint, xvas the competent authority, and that he had a right to see the au¬ 
 thority under xvliich the agent acted before jhe could be held to deliver the 
 property of a third party, xvithout the intervention of any Court, or before 
 lie could proceed one step in the business. 
 
 Mr. B. went on to add, chat inasmuch as the Proctor for libellant declined 
 to sustain the allegations of the petition, he, although not called upon to do 
 so, would go on and prove some, if not all of them to be utterly false; and 
 if he should show one to be false, the whole would fall as unworthy of be¬ 
 lief. Whereupon, Mr. Barker said, it would be remembered that Mr. Chil¬ 
 ton had sworn, in his petition, among other things, that Thomas Hunter 
 Holderness was the sole owner of the barque Aldebaran; he would now 
 call the Clerk of the Recorder’s Court of the 3d Municipality, to prove that 
 Richard H. Chilton swore before that Court, that he believed there were 
 other owners in that vessel than the one named in the register. 
 
 Mr. Barker then called— 
 
 John Eugene Layet, who being duly sworn on the part of respondent, 
 deposed that he is Secretary of the Recorder of Municipality No. 3; that in 
 the examination of the case of the State against W. B. York, charged by 
 Richard Harrison Chilton with an intention to commit a breach of the 
 peace, lately investigated before that Recorder’s Court, Mr. Chilton being 
 called upon as a witness, testified in that Court, that he had good reason 
 to believe there were other owners in the British Barque Aldebaran than 
 the one on the register of that vessel. That he had commenced taking 
 this testimony down, when Mr. Barker, counsel for Captain York objected, 
 saying that belief was not legal testimony; so the Court ruled, and what 
 he had written down as Chilton’s belief was stricken out. 
 
 Cross-Examined by Mr. Winthrop for Libellant. 
 
 Did not Mr. Chilton say that he did not know that Thomas Chilton was 
 part owner? 
 
 Answer —Mr. Chilton said he fiad good reason to believe that Thomas 
 Chilton was a part owner of the barque Aldebaran. 
 
 Mr. Barker then put in the correspondence with Mr. Mure, Mr. Win¬ 
 throp consenting to the letters being read as genuine, reserving the excep¬ 
 tion which he had made to their introduction, and their contents. [For 
 these letters see documents marked E, F and D, pages 13 and 14.] 
 
 Mr. Barker then called Michael Moore to prove a message which had 
 been sent by Mr. Mure, the British Consul to Mr. Barker. 
 
 Here a long and animated discussion took place between the Proctors. 
 
 Mr. Winthrop insisted that Mr. Mure was the proper witness, and said, 
 let him be called and state what he had said. 
 
35 
 
 Mr. Barker insisted that Mr. Mure had been made a party to these 
 proceedings. If what was stated in the petition was true, viz: 
 
 “ That the action and jurisdiction of this Court are invoked herein at the instance and 
 request of the said William Mure, representing the British Government at the said port of 
 New Orleans,”— 
 
 It would (said Mr. Barker) be the most faithless conduct on the records of 
 any Court; that he could not believe a word of it, as he had, in behalf of 
 his client, Cajit. York, negotiated a compromise with Mr. Mure, the Consul 
 recognizing the continued command of Capt. York; consenting to his dis¬ 
 charging James Scott the Chief Mate, (which had been the orignal bone 
 of contention,) promising not to interfere further with Captain York’s au¬ 
 thority as commander of the Aldebaran, and referring all legal proceedings, 
 if any should be found necessary, to the Courts of England, so far as he, 
 the Consul, and the British Government were concerned, leaving Mr. Chil¬ 
 ton at liberty to pursue his own course. Mr. Barker said he could not 
 believe it possible that Mr. Mure was, at the moment of receiving the apo¬ 
 logy agreed on, and acknowledging himself satisfied—at work to deprive 
 Captain York of the. benefit of the compromise. That so far as he knew, 
 the British Consul’s conduct had been perfectly honorable, but, if the alle¬ 
 gation in the petition was true, its whole character would be changed, and 
 the testimony of his own letters, together with that of several witnesses which 
 would be introduced, would fill every mind with perfect astonishment—and 
 would be altogether sufficient to induce this Court to dismiss the whole 
 proceedings, as it (the Court) could not allow its power to be invoked to 
 sanction any such conduct; that his client could not, under the circumstan¬ 
 ces of the case, be expected to make Mr. Mure a witness, and thereby bo 
 deprived of the right to contradict the testimony he might give—no witness 
 was bound to criminate himself—that the British Consul and the British 
 Government were a sort of party to these proceedings: the whole thing 
 was so novel that he (Mr. B.) did not know how to treat the subject—that 
 it was not possible for either to extend or diminish the jurisdiction of this 
 Court—that Richard Harrison Chilton or the owner of the Aldebaran were 
 competent to maintain a suit in this, or any other Court in the United 
 States, without the consent of Her Britannic Majesty, or her Consul—that 
 the very naming of them in the petition was a vassalage unbecoming free¬ 
 men. Besides, (said Mr. B.) there was no authority, English or Ameri¬ 
 can, for such a proceeding; the law relied on by the Consul, cited in his 
 own letter, is for the protection of seamen against the tyranny of ship 
 masters; it makes it a criminal offence to leave a mate or sailor in a for¬ 
 eign country without the consent of the Consul. In this case he was ap¬ 
 plied to and refused his consent, there ended the power of the Consul. 
 Had the Captain put the mate on shore in defiance of the Consul’s idea- 
 sure, and gone home without him, as soon as he arrived within the British 
 dominions, he would have been liable to arrest, trial and conviction, for 
 the offence; whidh oflence could not exist prior to the departure of the 
 ship without the mate; had this happened, it was the duty of the Consul to 
 have transmitted to his Government the necessary evidence. 
 
 The Court then allowed witnesses to be examined. 
 
36 
 
 Michael Moore, for respondent, being duly sworn, deposed that Mr. 
 Mure, the British Consul, and himself were in the Merchants Exchange 
 Reading Rooms, on the evening of the 21st instant; in the course of con¬ 
 versation, Mr. Mure asked him where Mr. Barker was? Witness replied, 
 at his, Mr. Barker’s house, that being the most likely place to find him. 
 The conversation then turned upon the subject of the Aldebaran, when 
 Mr. Mure requested him (witness) to state to Mr. Barker that he under¬ 
 stood Mr. Chilton was going to proceed further in the matter; but that he 
 (Mure) had nothing more to do in it; that he had washed his hands of it, 
 and that he would endeavor to dissuade Mr. Chilton from it. 
 
 John G. Robinson, for respondent, being duly sworn, deposed that Mr. 
 Mure told him that the difficulty with Captain York of the Aldebaran had 
 been arranged, so far as he was concerned; that he had washed his hands 
 of all further proceedings in the matter, on this side of the water. 
 
 Cross-Examined. 
 
 These proceedings (the libel case,) were not mentioned. 
 
 Direct Examination resumed- 
 
 Knows it was in relation to the dispute with Captain York; this conver¬ 
 sation took place within two or three days past. 
 
 Two or three other witnesses, with whom the British Consul had had 
 sin dai conversations, (as the Proctors for respondent stated they would 
 be able to prove by them,) were in attendance in Court in the morning, 
 but not then answering to the call, Mr. Barker said he would not detain 
 the Court to send for them, as the testimony already given was all-suffi¬ 
 cient on that point, 
 
 Mr. Barker then asked for an attachment against William Mure, Esq. 
 stating that a subpoena duces tecum requiring him to appear and produce 
 the letter of Messrs. Gordon, Wylie & Co. referred to in the answer, had 
 been issued and served upon him, and yet Mr. Mure had not appeared in 
 Court. 
 
 Mr. Winthrop stated that Mr. Mure was sick and unable to come; that 
 he had been sent home by Dr. Rushton; that he (Mr. W.) would admit the 
 copy in the answer to be a true copy, or so in substance, reserving his 
 right to except to the use of it. 
 
 Mr. Gordon, also a witness who had been subpoened, not being in Court 
 was again sent for. 
 
 Mr. Winthrop then offered himself as a witness, and being duly sworn, 
 deposed that Mr. Mure, the Consul, was at his office on Monday even¬ 
 ing, (21st;) that Mr. Chilton was also there; that Mr. Mure in express 
 terms, consented and advised the institution of this suit. 
 
 Mr. Barker then proposed that he should be examined, and being duly 
 sworn, deposed, that being very anxious to procure a reconciliation of the 
 differences between the parties, he called on the British Consul on the 17th 
 instant, and stated to that gentleman that he supposed matters might be 
 
37 
 
 so arranged as to put an end to further expense and delay. Mr. Mure 
 seemed very willing for such an arrangement to be made, and promised 
 to send Mr. Chilton to him (witness) to arrange the terms. Mr. Chilton 
 called and made a memorandum of what he would agree to, and what wit¬ 
 ness promised to recommend to Captain York. Witness believes the 
 heads of every thing agreed upon were put down in pencil by Mr. Chilton. 
 The terms agreed on were that all litigation was to terminate; that Mr. 
 Chilton was to pay Captain York twelve dollars and fifty cents, expenses 
 incurred by the seizure of his chronometer by Chilton; that Captain York 
 was to make a satisfactory explanation to the Consul; that the Consul was 
 to give permission for Captain York to discharge his mate, Scott; and that 
 no further interruption u-as to be made, or attempted, to Captain York's 
 command of the barque Aldebaran; that Mr. Chilton or the Consul weie to 
 arrange with the mate; and that Capt. York was to endeavor to reconcile 
 matters with his second mate and crew. Witness then accompanied Mr. 
 Chilton to the Consul’s office, for his approbation; when Mr. Chilton stated 
 the aforesaid terms to the Consul, holding the memorandunryn his hand, and 
 xvitness believes read from it. The Consul said it was all very well, ex¬ 
 cept that he could not agree to release Captain York from prosecution in 
 England; witness replied that he supposed the most difficult part would be 
 to agree upon such an explanation as would be satisfactory to him, Mr. 
 Mure. Witness then remarked to the Consul, that as to the prosecution 
 in England, Captain York had not done any wrong and ought not to fear 
 prosecution. A letter was then drafted by witness, which met the appro¬ 
 bation of the Consul, and he (the Consul) detailed what reply he would 
 make, wiih which witness repaired to Captain York, who approved of the 
 letter, but refused to release Mr. Chilton from damages without he was 
 also exhonerated from the threatened prosecution in England. Witness im¬ 
 mediately sent a messenger to Mr. Chilton, to notify him of Captain York’s 
 determination, that he might follow up his complaint before the Recorder 
 if he thought proper; the hout*to which the examination had been adjourn¬ 
 ed having arrived. The messenger delivered the message and accompa¬ 
 nied Mr. Chilton to the office of the Consul, and heard him (Chilton) no¬ 
 tify him of the nature of the message. The aforesaid investigation of the 
 alleged intention on the part of Captain York to break the peace, went on, 
 and on the evening of that day, the 18th, witness wrote the letter to Mr. 
 Mure in xvords and figures following : 
 
 William Mure, Esq., 
 
 H. B. Majesty’s Consul: 
 
 New Orleans, 18th April, 1845. 
 
 Dear Sir—Agreeably to promise I proceeded from your office immediately to the “Aldeba¬ 
 ran,” and submitted to Capt. York the terms suggested fora compromise of the difficulties in 
 relation to the command of that vessel; the draft of a letter to be addressed by him to you seem¬ 
 ed to meet bis approbation, conditioned that your reply, to be delivered simultaneously, 
 should be approved by him, which, from our conversation, I am satisfied would be the case. 
 
 lie, however, refuses to release his claims on Mr. Chilton for damages while threatened 
 with legal proceedings against him on the other side. 
 
 Of all which I sent my clerk to notify Mr. Chilton, that be might, if he thought proper, 
 attend to the prosecution of his complaint, which Captain York could not control, his duty 
 being to defend himself. Mr. Chilton not having thought proper to withdraw the complaint, 
 
38 
 
 the trial went on from necessity; during the progress he appeared, and supposing the com¬ 
 promise would supersede the necessity for him to produce his authority, was not then pre¬ 
 pared to do so, and the Court adjourned the proceedings until 1 o’clock to-morrow, to allow 
 him time to furnish the necessary proofs. 
 
 Neither the State nor public prosecutor can take cognizance of any arrangement between 
 the parties, hence this suit, result how it may, should not interrupt the negotiation for a 
 compromise, which I yet hope may take place. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Yourob’t. serv’t, 
 
 (Signed.) JACOB BARKER. 
 
 Witness continued—he called on the Consul the next day, and found him 
 disposed to carry into effect the arrangement, so far as he (the Consul) 
 was concerned, leaving Mr. Chilton to pursue his own course; and accor¬ 
 dingly the letter of apology was delivered. Some delay taking place in 
 furnishing an answer, an explanation was demanded, on the morning of 
 the 21st April. The Consul in reply said that Mr. Chilton had been to 
 see Mr. Gordon, (Gordon, Wylie & Go.) and that the said Gordon wished 
 to see him (the British Consul) before he could proceed any further. Cap¬ 
 tain York being present, proposed to accompany the Consul to Mr. Gor¬ 
 don’s office, in older to ascertain what new difficulty had sprung up, when 
 the said Consul refused to permit him to do so; whereupon Capt. York waited 
 on Mr. Gordon himself, from whom he received a letter, saying that Cap¬ 
 tain York had agreed not to ship any mate for the Aldebaran who did not 
 meet with the approbation of Messrs. Gordon, Wylie & Co., and which 
 was all that could be reasonably required of him. 
 
 This letter was immediately delivered to the Consul, who drafted a let¬ 
 ter to be sent to Captain York, in answer to the renewed application to 
 discharge the mate, coupled with the apology, the Consul at the same time 
 agreeing that the permission to discharge the mate should be endorsed on 
 the shipping articles in his possession, pursuant to the requirements of the 
 acts of Parliament, reserving Mr. Scott’s rights as conditioned in the letter. 
 Captain York being in haste to attend to his duties on board the ship, as 
 commander, and the Consul wishing to make a fair copy of the letter agreed 
 upon, retained it for that purpose, and promised to send it to witness, or to 
 Captain York, in the course of the day; in the afternoon or evening the 
 two letters which have been read in evidence were sent to the office of 
 witness, addressed by the Consul to Capt. York. 
 
 It being late, and Mr. Gordon not having been found, Mr. Winthrop pro¬ 
 posed to the Court to submit the case on the evidence, without argument. 
 Mr. Barker said he was willing that the argument should go on, on the 
 supposition that Mr. Gordon would contradict the allegation in the petition, 
 
 That Messrs. Gordon, Wylie & Co. “ will protest against her, (the said barque,’ as unsea¬ 
 worthy in case the said York should proceed in her to sea. as Captain or commander:” 
 
 This allegation, said Mr. Barker, is true or false; let Mr. Gordon 
 come in the morning and say which. He, Mr. B., had but that single 
 question to ask that witness. 
 
 This having been agreed to, the Proctors then addressed the Court in 
 support of their several claims. 
 
 Mr. Winthrop, for libellant, commenced by enforcing on the attention 
 
39 
 
 of the Court what he had urged iu opening the case, insisting on its being 
 the duty of the Court for the purposes of the rule under discussion, to con¬ 
 sider all the allegations contained in the petition as true; that it was the 
 right of his client to have the property on giving good and sufficient bonds, 
 which he was prepared to do, having been the first applicant ; that he, Mr. 
 W., was well acquainted with Admiralty practice; that the demurrage of the 
 vessel, seamen’s wages, and other expenses, were too serious for the Court 
 to permit this case to go on, and hold the property under seizure until the 
 final action of the trial of this cause—which might not be arrived at under 
 at least two months—intimating that the cargo, which consisted of cotton, 
 was a very speculative article, and great losses might ensue by a change in 
 the market price , and the vessel become liable therefor; that no application 
 had been made on the part of Capt. York to bond the barque; that his client 
 ought to have been met with a counter claim to bond the vessel, and that 
 not having been done, he, Mr. W., insisted that the Court could not refuse 
 their application. 
 
 Mr. Barker said that although he had not intended to offer any argu¬ 
 ment, and should not at that late hour of the evening, or think of detaining 
 the court another day as the barque was ready for sea, and hjs client, Cap¬ 
 tain York, was more anxious than any other person could be, to avoid ex¬ 
 pense and delay: yet his duty compelled him to offer a few remarks. As 
 to the demurrage, sailors wages, other expenses, and damages by the fall 
 in the price of cotton, these were matters purely applicable to the complain¬ 
 ant. His client had not arrested the barque; he had not taken any pro¬ 
 ceedings to bring on such disasters; he had not yet struck the first blow; all 
 that Captain York had done was to defend himself. His client’s turn 
 would come sooner or later. They, (continued Mr. B.) the gentlemen, 
 parties to this libel suit, intending to break the peace themselves, put my 
 client in prison, lest they should provoke him to do so. They libel the ves¬ 
 sel and occasion all the evils of which they now complain, and ask the 
 Court to protect them from such evils by invading his rights. They say 
 because the application was first made by them, that they are entitled to 
 bond the vessel. First indeed ! yes, before we did or could know of these 
 proceedings. However, that point does not come up, as we are not appli¬ 
 cants to bond the vessel. We deny that we can be required to bond, any 
 more than we can be to surrender the property before the voyage has ter¬ 
 minated, without an allegation of danger or delinquency, and then we 
 should have a right to traverse, investigate, discuss, and have such allega¬ 
 tion adjudged before we could be deprived of our property—our character— 
 or our honor—which are comprised in the command. 
 
 The testimony of the Proctor who has just spoken, gave me (said Mr. 
 B.) great pain; although it did not sustain the oath of his client. It, un¬ 
 explained, went far enough to establish the bad faith of the British Con¬ 
 sul, and that he had acted a double part; it is a misfortune to that gentle¬ 
 man that he should be taken sick at the very moment his own honor re¬ 
 quired him to be in Court. I could not (added Mr. B.) have believed Mr. 
 Mure capable of intrigueing with the enemy to pursue hostile acts, while 
 he was pledging himself not to have any thing further to do in the matter 
 
40 
 
 on this side of the Atlantic, at the same time professing not to allow his 
 private feelings to influence his official conduct; he could not believe he 
 would violate the condition of his letters of the 21st, as found in the respon¬ 
 dent’s answer, before the ink with which they were written had time to 
 dry; that he would fly to the office of a lawyer the moment he had receiv¬ 
 ed the apology, and request proceedings toie instituted which he had stipu¬ 
 lated not to have any thing to do with, as a condition on which the apology 
 should be made, and this too before a messenger reached Captain York 
 with these letters. All this it will be remembered is alleged to have been 
 done on the same day on which the Consul’s letters were written, the 21st 
 April. Mr. Moore, the Proctor for the libellant, (Mr. Winthrop,) and him¬ 
 self, in their testimony, all agreed as to that date, nor was it to be believ¬ 
 ed that after having been to this meeting at the lawyer’s office, and con¬ 
 sented to and advised, I will not say requested these proceedings, (as I do 
 not yet believe he did so,) that he should pi-oceed directly from such faith¬ 
 less conduct to the Merchants Exchange in search of Mr. Barker, to ap¬ 
 prize him that Captain York was in danger of further proceedings from 
 Mr. Chilton—to assure him (Mr. B.) that he had, and should preserve his 
 plighted faith, and not have any thing further to do in the matter on this 
 side of the Atlantic—that he (the Consul) was very sorry, and would en¬ 
 deavor to dissuade Mr. Chilton therefrom, and not finding Mr. Barker he 
 sent him, (Mr. B.) by his friend Mr. Moore, a message to the aforesaid 
 effect. All this is in proof! and said Mr. B. will this Court entertain any 
 further proceedings in such a case? 
 
 Mr. Lacy, also for the respondent, then rose and said that the Court 
 and all parties seemed anxious to terminate this cause this evening, all be¬ 
 ing much fatigued, and as the other gentlemen have declined to go into 
 the argument at length, he should follow their example. Excepting alto¬ 
 gether to the position of the Proctor for the libellant, “ that the Court was 
 bound to take for true,” in deciding this rule, “ that all the allegations in the 
 petition were true,” and on that assumption could deprive an individual of 
 his all, and involve him in ruinous responsibility. The doctrine, said Mr. 
 L. is too absurd, too dangerous, to be entertained by this or any other Court. 
 How does the case stand? Sundry allegations are made under oath, on 
 which the ship is arrested; we under oath deny their truth; the complain¬ 
 ant refuses to sustain them by proof, when we go on and prove them 
 false, and in the face of such testimony we are told that the Court are to 
 take them all for true—what can be more preposterous? Suppose they 
 were all true—the complainant admits us to he in possession. No com¬ 
 plaint made that we are not lawfully so—no proof adduced to show the au¬ 
 thority of the agent, not even a letter , and, strictly speaking, before he could 
 be recognized to carry on this, or any other suit, he must produce a regular 
 power of attorney, under seal, duly authenticated. With this explanation, 
 and with a request that if the Court should find any difficulty in coming to 
 a satisfactory conclusion, that it would allow the Proctors on both sides 
 to go fully into the argument—they then submitted the case to the Court. 
 
 Mr. Winthrop then rose and said that he had no further remarks to 
 make, as he understood the Court to recognize the position he assumed— 
 
41 
 
 that the allegations in the petition were prima facie evidence of their 
 truth. 
 
 The Court then adjourned at a late hour. 
 
 On the following morning the Court took up this case, to receive fur¬ 
 ther testimony. 
 
 Alexander Gordon, for respondent, being duly sworn, deposed that 
 he did not say that his firm would protest against the barque Aldebaran as 
 unseaworthy, in case the said York should proceed in her to sea as Cap¬ 
 tain or commander. 
 
 Cross-Examined by Mr. Winthrop and also by Mr, Chilton. 
 
 Witness said he had had some conversation with Mr. Chilton, about 
 protesting if the ship went to sea without being properly manned, but this 
 had no reference to Captain York. 
 
 Would, said Mr. Chilton, a ship be seaworthy with an intemperate com¬ 
 mander? 
 
 Witness answered, certainly that would be a radical defect—that he 
 knew nothing of Captain York being intemperate, that he had never seen 
 him so. 
 
 Mr. Barker wished to resume the direct examination of Mr. Gordon. 
 
 Mr. Winthrop objected, saying that the understanding was that there 
 should be but one question propounded to the witness by the Proctor for 
 the respondent—whether or not the allegation in the petition of libellant in 
 relation to said witness was true or false; he contended that it had been 
 put and answered. 
 
 Mr. Barker said he was satisfied. 
 
 DECISION OF THE COURT. 
 
 {Extract from the Minutes.) 
 
 The Court having considered the rule filed in this cause by the libel¬ 
 lant, delivered this day its judgment, in words and figures following, to 
 wit: 
 
 “ It is ordered that the said rule be dismissed.” Whereupon, on motion of 
 John Winthrop, Esq. of counsel for the plaintiff in rule, it is ordered a re-hearing be 
 granted. 
 
 6 
 
42 
 
 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT. 
 
 His Honor Judge McCaleb, afterwards gave the following reasons in 
 support of the foregoing judgment. 
 
 Holderness 
 
 vs. y In Admiralty. 
 
 The British Barque Aldebaran. J 
 
 The libel in this case sets forth that Thomas Hunter Holderness, of Liv¬ 
 erpool, is the sole and registered owner of the barque Aldebaran,now L in the 
 port of New Orleans, that the possession of said barque is now wrongfully 
 withheld from the agent of the libellant, here present and representing the 
 owners, to wit, Richard H. Chilton, by William B. York, who alleges 
 himself to be entitled to the possession thereof, as Captain, although he 
 has long since been deprived of his command and superseded for gross, vi¬ 
 olent, improper and illegal conduct, by the action of said agent and Wil¬ 
 liam Mure, Esquire, British Consul at the Port of New Orleans, acting in 
 his official capacity; that Richard H. Chilton is the true and lawful agent 
 of the owner, and as such duly authorized and empowered to act in the 
 premises; that Gordon, Wylie & Co., merchants of this city, are now load¬ 
 ing the said barque, and have notified the agent of libellant, that they will 
 protest against her as unseaworthy, in case said York should proceed in 
 her to sea, as Captain or commander; that the action and jurisdiction of 
 this Court are invoked herein, at the instance and request of the British 
 Consul at this port. 
 
 The libel then prays for process according to the course of Courts 
 of Admiralty and Marine Jurisdiction, against the barque, and that 
 the Captain and all others having any right, title or interest in the 
 same, may be cited to shew cause why possession of the vessel should 
 not be delivered to the libellant. The libel is sworn to by Richard 
 H. Chilton, representing himself as agent of the libellant. Process was 
 issued against the vessel and she was taken into custody by the Marshal 
 of this Court, 
 
 A rule was then taken on the Captain to show cause why the vessel 
 should not be delivered up to Chilton, upon his giving bond, with good and 
 sufficient security in such sum as the Court might direct. 
 
 The Captain accordingly appeared and in answer to the rule, admitted 
 that he was in possession of the vessel as Master, and represented under 
 oath that he was of Hull in England; that before his appointment the ves¬ 
 sel may have been in the possession and ownership of the libellant, but he 
 does not know positively; that if Thomas Hunter Holderness, of Liverpool, 
 is, as he believes, the sole owner, he does not know on what terms Thom¬ 
 as Holderness, of Hull, received her from him then or soon after, subject 
 to a charter to be carried into effect through the agency of Gordon, Wylie 
 & Co. of this city; to all of whom he probably has to account for his own pos¬ 
 session and stewardship, and he denies that any or either of them are oth¬ 
 erwise in possession, and refuses to surrender until the vessel returns to 
 
43 
 
 Hull. He alleges that when a claim was first made on him for possession, 
 he was willing to comply, and to deliver the barque to any person duly au¬ 
 thorized to represent his owner, (waiving his own legal rights,) and for 
 this purpose he demanded the authority of the individual pretending to be 
 authorized; that this was refused and a most relentless war was commenced 
 and carried on against him by R. H. Chilton, the pretended agent. He 
 claims his legal rights, and insists that so long as he continues to prosecute 
 the voyage agreeably to his instructions, there is no power competent to 
 remove him from his command until the voyage has terminated; that he 
 knows nothing of the authority of Chilton beyond the allusion made to him 
 in his (respondent’s) sailing orders, wherein he is required to consult said 
 Chilton as to the best method ofproeuring a flat boat in this port for dun- 
 naging the vessel. He declares that when Chilton claimed to exercise 
 authority, he, by his counsel, asked through the British Consul, permission 
 to see it; that instead of having his request complied with, he was thrown 
 into prison at the instance of Chilton, who endeavored to excite rebellion 
 among the crew of the vessel; and in the discussion of the cause of his con¬ 
 finement before a tribunal of his (Chilton’s) own selection, the said Chilton 
 was required to produce his authority, which was refused. He alleges that 
 Mr. Gordon, of the firm of Gordon, Wylie & Co. has expressed himself 
 satisfied with his conduct, and he insists upon his right to hold possession 
 of the barque. 
 
 I have stated all the facts set up in this answer to the rule, which are 
 material to the decision upon the application of the libellants. 
 
 The libel presents a fair case for the interposition of the Court, and if its 
 allegations were uncontradicted, my course would be a plain one. The 
 answer, however, makes out a strong case, both in law and equity, in favor 
 of the Master, and in the absence of the proof which becomes absolutely 
 necessary to sustain the libel, I am compelled to refuse the relief 
 sought by the individual claiming to be the agent of the owners. The 
 oath of the Master must have the same legal force as the oath of the agent, 
 and in this case, in one material point, it is sustained by the oath of Mr. 
 Gordon, of the firm of Gordon, Wylie & Co., who declares that he did not 
 notify Chilton that his house would protest if Capti in York should go to 
 sea as Master of the barque Aldebaran. 
 
 No evidence has been adduced to establish the ownership of the vessel, 
 or the agency of Chilton. There is indeed reason to believe that Thomas 
 Hunter Holderness, of Liverpool, is the owner of the barque, but it is clear 
 from the answer, and from the sailing orders of the Master, given in evi¬ 
 dence, that the vessel is in possession of the respondent, by virtue of a 
 charter to Thomas Holderness, of Hull. The sailing orders are signed by 
 Holderness & Chilton, and dated at Hull. It is not pretended that the 
 Chilton here named is the individual claiming to be the agent of the owners 
 in this libel. How far the register could be regarded as legal evidence ot 
 ownership is a question which I need not decide, since that the register 
 was not offered in evidence on the trial of the rule. The respondent has 
 shewn that he was willing to surrender the vessel to any person having the 
 legal authority to receive her. That authority has never been produced, 
 
44 
 
 and although the libel sworn to presented a case strong enough to call for 
 the interposition of the Court upon those rules and principles of national 
 comity upon which Courts of Admiralty act in matters of this nature, yet 
 when the very facts set forth are put at issue by the answer, also sworn io, 
 it would be out of the power of the Court to grant the relief sought for with¬ 
 out evidence to justify it. The direct responsibility of the Master to the 
 charterers is a sufficient reason for refusing to surrender the vessel except 
 to a person armed with full authority to receive her. 
 
 As a principle of Admiralty law, it is clear that an owner may dispos¬ 
 sess a master; and where there are several owners, a majority is sufficient 
 to authorize the removal. In the case of the “New Draper,” (4. Robin¬ 
 son’s Admiralty Reports, 237,) Sir William Scott holds the following 
 language : 
 
 “ This is a proceeding for the purpose of dispossessing a master and 
 pari owner of a ship which had been under his command. The dispossess 
 sion of a master is in its nature not an uncommon proceeding; all that 
 the Court requires in cases where the master is not an owner, is that the 
 majority of the proprietors should declare their dis-inclination to continue 
 him in possession. 
 
 “ In the case of a master and part owner something more is required, 
 before the Court will proceed to dispossess a person who is also a proprie¬ 
 tor in the vessel, and whose possession, therefore, the common law is, 
 upon general principles, inclined to maintain. It is not, however, by any 
 means unprecedented for this Court to proceed even to that extent; but, 
 then, some special reason is commonly stated, to induce the Court to in¬ 
 terpose.” 
 
 In this case we find that for cause shown a Master, who was also a 
 part owner, was removed from the command of a ship ; and it is clear, 
 that in the case of a master, not a part owner, it is only necessary that 
 the owner, or a majority of owners, if there are more than one, should 
 declare their disinclination to keep him in possession, to justify the Court in 
 decreeing a removal. If the application in this case were sustained by 
 proper evidence, I should feel bound to grant it. 
 
 The question of jurisdiction, although not directly raised in argument, 
 or by the pleadings, has not escaped the attention of the Court. It is a 
 question always of primary importance, and one which I feel at all times 
 bound to examine. 
 
 In contests between foreigners, the Courts of Admiralty, both in this 
 country and in England, usually decline exercising jurisdiction, and refer 
 the parties to their own tribunals. There are cases, however, where, 
 from necessity and upon principles of national comity, a contrary course is 
 pursued. “It is with the greatest reluctance,” says Sir William Scott, 
 “that this Court takes up questions of this kind, where foreigners are 
 alone concerned. These are questions which do not properly belong to 
 this jus gentium , but depends upon the municipal regulations of different 
 countries, with which this Court can be but imperfectly acquainted. 
 The Court, is, therefore, very unwilling to enter upon such questions, and 
 has never, I believe, entertained suits of this kind, (a cause of possession). 
 
45 
 
 unless the cases have been referred to its decision by the consent of par¬ 
 ties, or by the intervention of the representative of the foreign State, devol¬ 
 ving the jurisdiction of his own country on this Court.” (See the case of 
 the Deuter 1st Haggard.) 
 
 I have, by consent of the parties, taken jurisdiction of the cause before 
 me, and not by the intervention of the British Consul at this port. He is 
 not the representative of Great Britain, in the sense in which that term 
 is used in the authority just cited, but stands before the Court simply in 
 the light of a Commercial Agent, and certainly without the necessary 
 power to devolve the jurisdiction of his own country upon this tribunal. 
 
 For the reasons here given, ana in the absence of the necessary evi¬ 
 dence to establish the alleged ownership and agency, I must discharge 
 the Rule, and the same is discharged accordingly. 
 
 When the Court had delivered its judgment, with the reasons for arri¬ 
 ving at such decision, Mr. Winthrop, Proctor for libellant, expressed great 
 surprise, saying he had understood the Court to assent to the proposition, 
 that all the allegations in the petition were for the purpose of deciding this 
 Rule, to be taken for true, therefore he had not adduced proof which he 
 held; nor proceeded to sum up the case. 
 
 The Court in reply said, certainly not to be taken for true, when denied 
 by the defendant under oath, and contradicted by testimony. 
 
 The learned Proctor then asked for a re-hearing, that he might offer 
 proof. 
 
 The Court said in reply, that the case had been decided, but that under 
 the allegation of surprise, it could not refuse a re-hearing on the presenta¬ 
 tion of the necessary affidavit; but that the re-hearing must be had after 
 notice to the opposite party, and take its place on the calender of next 
 week; that all other business could not be crowded out to give place to 
 this, when they already had had abundance of time to produce proof, if 
 they had been inclined to do so. The affidavit was drawn up, read to the 
 Court, and a re-hearing ordered accordingly. 
 
 The attention of the reader is now called to the proceedings which fol¬ 
 lowed immediately after this decision was given, remarking by the way, 
 that, although the affidavit just alluded to was prepared and read in Court, 
 still it was not filed or heard of afterwards. 
 
 The documents will speak for themselves; the repulsed enemy was still 
 resolved on his purpose and its accomplishment, no matter by what means 
 the object was attained. If it was the desire or intention of the compiler 
 to take particular sides in this controversy, strict justice, and a true narra¬ 
 tive of facts, would induce him to show several clandestine plans which 
 have come to his knowledge, in order to get the barque from her moorings 
 between the above decision, on Saturday morning, and the following 
 Mondaypthose, however, proving abortive, he sees no necessity for, and 
 goes again to the record. 
 
46 
 
 Before the next proceedings in Court are arrived at, it is deemed well to 
 notice a fact which has been furnished to him, in reference to the faith of the 
 Consul. It will be remembered that the British Consul had granted 'per¬ 
 mission to Captain York, in his letter of the 21st April, (as found on page 
 31,) to discharge'James Scott., the chief mate of the Aldebaran, and en¬ 
 dorse the same, as a matter of course, on the shipping articles of the ves¬ 
 sel. This not having been done, Captain York proceeded with a Notary 
 to the office of the Consul, and made the necessaiy demand; the Consul 
 being absent, notice of the demand was left by the Notary, and this an¬ 
 swer elicited. 
 
 British Consulate, New Orleans, April 26 th, 1845. 
 
 William Christy, Esq., 
 
 Notary Public; 
 
 Dear Sir—I have received your note, demanding that I shall endorse on the shipping- 
 articles of the barrpie Aldebaran the discharge of James Scott as mate of said vessel, and 
 regret that I cannot comply with same: first, because James Scott is not discharged; and 
 second, because I am informed that the barque has cleared this day at the Custom House 
 in command of another captain. 
 
 I am, sir, 
 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 (Signed.) WM. MURE, 
 
 H. B. M. Consul. 
 
 Whereupon the Notary protested, &c. 
 
 The name of the negligent abusive and discarded mate, Scott, which had 
 been inserted on the register by the British Consul, as master, in place of 
 Captain York, was erased with a sharp instrument; he re-enstated as mate, 
 another person appointed as master, his name endorsed by the Consul on 
 the register, and the ship cleared at the Consul’s office under the command 
 of this new captain, in violation of the treaty made with Captain York on 
 the 21st of April, yet the Consul, on the 26th, writes that he regrets that 
 he cannot comply with Captain York’s demand to have permission to dis¬ 
 charge the mate, endorsed on the shipping articles, pursuant to the terms 
 of that treaty, and pursuant with the requirements of the British law. 
 
 Perceiving that in the absence of the Marshal from the city, the keeper, 
 acting under the direction of the Proctor for the libellant, rather than the 
 authority of the Court, had withdrawn from the vessel, and that the said 
 Chilton was preparing to send her beyond the jurisdiction of the Court in 
 defiance of all law and authority and before the re-hearing which had been 
 ordered had taken place, application was made by Captain York to His 
 Honor Judge M’Caleb, to interpose his authority to call back the Marshal’s 
 officers to their duty—hence the following affidavit: 
 
47 
 
 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE U. S. COURT. 
 
 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. 
 
 AFFIDAVIT OF CAPTAIN YORK. 
 
 Thomas Hunter Holderness 
 vs. 
 
 British barque Aldebaran 
 
 United States 
 District Court. 
 
 Monday , 28 th April, 1845. 
 
 Present: —His Honor, Theodore H. M’Caleb, Judge. 
 
 This day personally appeared before the undersigned, William B. York, who makes 
 oath that the British barque Aldebaran, which was seized by virtue of the process of the 
 Honorable the District Court of the United States for the district of Louisiana, in the suit 
 of Thomas H. Holderness vs. said barque Aldebaran and deponent, and held by the 
 Marshal of the United States for said district, has been surrendered and abandoned by 
 said Marshal to the custody of others; and that the said, vessel is now on the eve of 
 being taken from beyond the jurisdiction of this honorable Court. The deponent York, 
 therefore prays that an order may issue, directing the said Marshal to take and keep 
 possession of the said vessel until the further orders of this honorable Court- 
 
 (Signed.) WM. B. YORK. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 28th day of April, 1845. 
 
 (Signed ) THEO. H. M'CALEB, 
 
 U. S. Judge. 
 
 On filing the written affidavit of W. B. York, (as above) the court gave 
 an order thereon, in the words and figures following, to-wit: 
 
 Upon the within affidavit —It is ordered that the Marshal do retain possession of the 
 vessel, unless the libel be regularly withdrawn- 
 
 (Signed.) THEO. H. M’CALEB, 
 
 U. S. Judge. 
 
 Thereupon an order was issued by the Clerk of said Court, directing 
 the said Marshal to act in accordance therewiU^_ « j 
 
 Note. —Late in the evening of the same day the libellant, through' Messrs. ^Sl r i ittm 
 and Mure, applied to the Judge and obtained the order which now follows. Particular 
 attention is directed to the wording of the order of the Judge, and that issued to the U. 
 
 S. Marshal to release the vessel, purporting to be founded upon it; no direction was 
 given as to the possession; and not a word said about delivering the vessel ‘‘to the said 
 Thomas H. Holderness, or his agent.” 
 
 If the libel had been really withdrawn by the libellant, then the possession still remain¬ 
 ed in Captain York, for he was in possession of the vessel when she was libelled, and 
 they had failed to show why he should not retain it. 
 
SECOND ORDER. 
 
 Thomas Hunter Holderness, 
 vs. 
 
 British Barque Aldebaran. 
 
 U. S. District 
 Court. 
 
 Monday, April 28lli, 1845. 
 
 Present—H is Honor, T. H. M’Caleb, Judge. 
 
 The following order was this day granted by the Court, after the above, to-wit: “T ,ie 
 Proctor for libellant in this case has asked for an order to discontinue the libel; as there 
 seems to be no reason why this order should not be granted, the clerk will enter an or¬ 
 der to that effect, upon the payment of costs.” 
 
 Clerk’s Office, April 29th, 1845. 
 
 I hereby certify that the above are true and correct extracts from the minutes. 
 
 (Signed,) N. R. JENNINGS, Clerk. 
 
 ORDER TO THE MARSHAL. 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-- EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. 
 
 The President of the United States of America to the Marshal of the 
 Eastern District of Louisiana, or his lawful Deputy, Greeting: 
 
 Whereas in the District Court of the United States, in and for the Eastern District of 
 Louisiana, the Judge has this day issued the following order, to-wit: Holderness vs. 
 the barque Aldebaran, the Proctor for libellant ill this case has asked for an order to dis¬ 
 continue the libel. As there seems to be no reason why this order should not be granted, 
 the Clerk will enter an order to that effect, upon payment of costs. 
 
 Under this order of the Court, the barque Aldebaran, libelled by Thomas Hunter 
 Holderness, haslbeen released from seizure, according to law, and the costs of suit up to 
 this date having been paid, you are hereby commanded, conformably to law, and the 
 order of the said Court, to cause the said barque Aldebaran to be delivered to the said 
 Thomas Ii. Holderness, or his Agent, and herein make return. 
 
 t 1 Witness, the Honorable Theodore H. McCaleb, Judge of said Court, 
 
 ] L. S. > at New Orleans, this 28th day of April, A. D. 1845, and 69th year of the 
 l ) Independence of the United States. 
 
 (Signed.) N. R. JENNINGS, Clerk. 
 
 ENDORSEMENTS. 
 
 New Orleans, April 28.th, 1815. Received from I. P. Walden, Esq., in conformity 
 with the within order of Court, the barque Aldebaran and cargo. 
 
 «t Cousin full to be paid to the Marshal. 
 
 ** ■** A Vi R. H. C HILT O N, 
 
 ••1"' •** * Agent. 
 
 All the costs, as charged by the Marshal, to be paid by J. Winthrop. 
 
 (Signed.) R. M. CARTER, 
 
 Attorney. 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT-FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. 
 
 Clerk’s Office, April 29th, 1845. 
 
 5 r « l I hereby certify that the foregoing ia a true copy from the original on file. 
 I u b - * (Signed.) N. R. JENNINGS, Clerk. 
 
The Aldebaran and cargo, probably worth one hundred thousand dollars, 
 was thus delivered, by the Deputy Marshal, to irresponsible persons, who, 
 in the twinkling of an eye, sent her in the stillness of the night, beyond 
 the jurisdiction of the Court, and before the rising of the sun on the follow¬ 
 ing day, before the Court assembled, or could even hear of the abuse of 
 its authority, she was far out of reach; and the first intimation His Honor 
 the Judge could gain of it, was the exulting notice of the barque Aldebaran 
 in two of the morning newspapers, inserted there by Messrs. Mure and 
 Chilton, who repaired in person, late the same night, to the different print¬ 
 ing offices, to herald forth their exploit. The following from the Crescent 
 City of Tuesday morning, the 29 th April, is inserted as an example: 
 
 “Tiie late Libel suit in Admiralty.— Yesterday evening the barque Aldebaran, 
 Capt. Turner, went to sea under the command of her new Captain, having been released by 
 Judge McCaleb. The decision seemed to give great joy to the crew, and the vessel left the 
 Levee their cheering cry gave little response to the lachrymose speeches of the counsel of 
 the displaced captain. All seemed well under the new arrangement, and we apprehend 
 that no harm has been done any honest party. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS 
 
 Consequent upon the last mentioned order , and delivery of the vessel out of 
 the possession of the Marshal, between 9 and 10 o'clock, P. M., on Mon¬ 
 day, the 28 th of April, 1845, 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 RICHARD HARRISON CHILTON, WILLIAM MURE, JOHN 
 WINTHROP, JOHN CLAIBORNE and N. R. JENNINGS, 
 
 For Contempt of Court in aiding and. abetting in the issuing said order. 
 
 AFFIDAVIT OF CAPTAIN YORK, 
 
 AFTER THE DEPARTURE OF HIS VESSEL- 
 
 Thomas Hunter Holderness, 4 
 
 vs. > United States District Court for the Dis- 
 
 British Barque Aldebaran. ) trict of Louisiana. 
 
 William Broader York being duly sworn deposes and says, that he. was the Com 
 mander of the British Barque Aldebaran, that the said vessel was seized and taken posses 
 sion of by the Marshal of the United Stales for the District of Louisiana, under a process 
 
of this Honorable Court on thq twenty second Jay of April, 1845; that certain persons, at 
 ihe instance of William Mure aiul Richard Harrison Chilton, took forcible possession of the 
 said vessel, on Monday the 28th day of April, instant, in defiance of the authority of this 
 Court, and of the remonstrance of William Sharron, the Deputy Marshal, or keeper, who 
 had been appointed by the said Marshal to lake care of said vessel, and who had her in 
 charge, cut said vessel from her moorings and took her from the Levee in tow of the steam 
 tow boat called the “ Geneva,” carrying off the sad Deputy Marshal or keeper. That soon 
 afterwards J. P. Walden, another Deputy Marshal, procured the aid of the steam tow boat 
 ” Star,” and brought the said barque Aldebaran, back to the Levee where she w'as met by 
 Richard Harrison Chilton, Richard M. Carter, William Mure and John Winthrop, some 01 
 all of whom entered the cabin of the said barque Aldebaran with the said Walden; an or¬ 
 der was presented to the said Deputy Marshal, or keeper, in words and figures following: 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. 
 
 The President of the United States of America, to the Marshal of the Dis¬ 
 trict of Louisiana, or to his lawful Deputy —Greeting : 
 
 Whereas, in the District Court of the United States, in and for the Eastern District of 
 Louisiana, the Judge has this day issued the following order, to wit: 
 
 “■ Holderness vs. The Barque Aldebaran—The Proctor for libellant in this case has asked 
 for an order to discontinue the libel. -As there .seems to be no reason why this order should 
 not be granted, the Clerk will enter an order to that effect upon payment of costs.” 
 
 Under this order of the Court, the barque Aldebaran, libelled by Thomas Hunter Hol- 
 derness, has been released from seizure according to law, and the costs of suit up to this 
 date having been paid, you are hereby commanded conformably to law, and the order of 
 said Court, to cause the said barque Aldebaran to be delivered to the said Thomas H. Hol- 
 derness,or his agent, and hereon make return. 
 
 { ) Witness, the Honorable Theodore H. McCaleb, Judge of the said Court, 
 L. S. > at New' Orleans, this 28lh day of April, A. D. 1845, and the 69th year of the 
 ) Independence of the United States of America. 
 
 (Signed,) N. R. JENNINGS,Clerk. 
 
 That on the presentation of the foregoing order, the said Deputy Marshal, or keeper, deliv 
 ered to the said Richard Harrison Chilton the said barque Aldebaran, for which he gave to 
 the said Deputy Marshal, or keeper, a receipt in words and figures following: 
 
 ENDORSEMENT. 
 
 “ New Orleans, April 23th, 1845. Received from J. P. Walden, Esq. in conformity 
 of the within order of Court, the barque Aldebaran and cargo. 
 
 Costs in full to be paid to the Marshal. 
 
 $16 paid men.” 
 
 (Signed,) R. H. CHILTON, 
 
 Agent. 
 
 And that at the foot of which said receipt was added the following stipulation: 
 
 “ All costs as charged by the Mashal, to be paid by J. Winthrop.” 
 
 (Signed,) R. M. CARTER, 
 
 Att’y. 
 
 That immediately after which the said barque was taken in tow of the steam tow boat 
 called the “ Shark,” by order of the said Richard H. Chilton, who sent her for sea, beyond 
 the jurisdiction of this Court, carrying off a great portion of the baggage of this deponent, 
 and refusing to allow him time to take the same on shore; the said Chilton at the time being 
 assisted by the said William Mure, and by the advice and counsel of the said John 
 Winthrop. 
 
 This deponent further says, that he has been informed, and believes, that on the evening 
 of the said twenty eighth day of April, the said Chilton applied at the office of the Clerk of 
 this Honorable Court, accompanied by tire said William Mure, John Winthrop, and John 
 Claiborne, Esquires, and demanded ofN. R. Jennings, Esquire, Clerk of the said Court, the 
 
51 
 
 said order; lhat the same was filled up by the said John Claiborne, Esquire, and signed by 
 the saidN. R. Jennings, as Clerk, who caused the seal of this Court to be affixed thereto. 
 
 This deponent further says, that the suit in which the said vessel was seized, had not 
 been discontinued, nor had the costs been paid, as he has been informed by the Clerks in 
 the office of the Clerk of this Court., and believes, up to 2 o’clock, P. M. of the thirtieth day 
 of April, instant. 
 
 (Signed,) WILLIAM BROADER YORK. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 1st May, 1845. 
 
 (Signed,) THEO. H. McCALRB, 
 
 U. S. Judge. 
 
 COPY OF RULE. 
 
 Thomas Hunter Holclerness, ) District Court of the United States 
 vs. > for the District of Louisiana. 
 
 The British Barque Aldebaran. S 2d May, 1845. 
 
 On the application of Jacob Barker of New Orleans, herein appearing as “Amicus 
 Curice,” it is, on filing the deposition of William Broader York, ordered, that a rule be grant¬ 
 ed commanding N. R. Jennings, the Clerk of this Court to appear on the 7th day of May, 
 instant, at ten o’clock A. M. to answer a contempt of this Court, for issuing improperly, and 
 causing the seal of the Court to be affixed thereto, an order in contravention to law, and 
 the authority possessed by said Clerk, for the delivery of the British barque Aldebaran, un¬ 
 der seizure and in the charge of the Marshal of the United States, to Thomas H. Holder- 
 ness, or his agent, without any authority for so doing, and in contempt of this Court. 
 
 And also, at the same time and place, that Richard Harrison Chilton, William Mure, 
 John Winthrop and John Claiborne, be also commanded to appear and answer a contempt 
 of this Court, in aiding and procuring said order of said Clerk, and in interfering with the 
 orders of this Court, by causing the said barque to be removed beyond the jurisdiction of 
 this Court, as set forth in the said affidavit of William B. York. 
 
 (Signed.) THEO. II. M’CALEB, 
 
 U. .S'. Judge. 
 
 May, 1th, 1845. 
 
 The trial on the foregoing Rule, for contempt of Court was to have 
 come up this day. The returns being exhibited, it was found that the 
 Marshal had returned service on William Mure, Richard H. Chilton 
 and John Claiborne—John Winthrop not in town. Messrs. Jennings and 
 Claiborne appeared in Court and declared their readiness to answer. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said that Mr. Winthrop was expected back in a day or 
 two, and then excepted to the jurisdiction of the Court over the British 
 Consul, intimating that the Court had no power to call upon him, to answer 
 for any of his acts. 
 
 This the Court over-ruled, declaring its power to compel his attendance 
 to answer; and saying that it (the Court) could not regard him in any other 
 light than as a Commercial Agent. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne then said Mr. Mure will put in his answer. 
 
 Soon alter which Messrs Mure and Chilton appeared in Court, but owing 
 to the United States Circuit Court being in session, and having a press 
 of business before it, the case was obliged to be postponed until the 19th 
 
May, instant, when the parties were ordered to appear at 9 o’clock, A. M.. 
 and answer to the charge prefered against them. 
 
 The time being so distant when this investigation is to lake place—the 
 issue not being directly important to the elucidation of the wrongs of 
 Captain York, (it being considered that the mere issuing the order by the 
 Court calling upon men high in official stations, as well as legal and pri¬ 
 vate relations, to answer for a contempt shewn to its mandates and au¬ 
 thority, carries with it a sufficient vindication of the course pursued by 
 Captain York); and the anxiety of many to be in possession of the facts of 
 this case as far as they have gone, the compiler has thought proper here to 
 close his labors, remarking, however, that other proceedings, in the 
 course of preparation, of which he has been informed, will be resorted to 
 in order to call upon those to atone fully for their conduct, in having been 
 instrumental in depriving a young Captain of his command without justifi¬ 
 able cause, and of attempting to blast his fair fame. 
 
 The following affidavits, which have been sent before the Criminal Court 
 as the ground work of other proceedings, are introduced here, so that the 
 reader may be informed of every thing which has transpired up to the time 
 of going to press. 
 
 AFFIDAVITS. 
 
 John Wieu, of Arbroath, Scotland, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he rs 
 carpenter ot the barque Agneda, of Greenock, that he. at the request of William Hamlet 
 Williamson, mate of the said barque, went on board the barque Aldebaran on Monday 
 evening, the 28th day of April, 1845, to assist William Broader York, master of the said 
 barque Aldebaran, in taking on shore his baggage; that deponent commenced handing 
 the same from the said barque to the said Williamson, who was standing on the guard 
 board of the “Agneda;” in the progress of which the said “Aldebaran” was suddenly ta¬ 
 ken off by the steam tow boat Shark, carrying witness with her; that on her passage 
 down to the Balize many articles, said to be the residue of the baggage of Captain York 
 were delivered to witness, who assisted in putting them on board the “Shark,” consist¬ 
 ing of two trunks, one chest, and one bed and bedding. 
 
 That soon after which a person on board the Aldebaran, who was acting as mate, and 
 who this deponent was informed was the chief mate of the said barque Aldebaran, and 
 who this deponent believes went by the name of James Scott—the crew addressed him 
 by the name of Mr. Scott. That the said Scott then came to the side of said barque and 
 ordered the said baggage to be returned from the steam tow-boat Shark to the Aldebaran, 
 alleging that Captain York was indebted to him (Scott) in the sum of ten pounds, for 
 which he would take the baggage; it was accordingly passed back to the Aldebaran, and 
 was received by the second mate and passed in part or in whole to the said chief mate, 
 who was in the cabiu gangway, and who passed the same into the cabin; that in about a 
 quarter ot an hour the packages were all returned to the Shark, the two trunks and chest 
 having had their locks forced open; that on arrival at New Orleans the said baggage was 
 delivered to the said Captain York in the precise condition it was returned to the said 
 Shark from the Aldebaran, according to the best knowledge and belief of witness, and 
 furthermore this deponent saith not. 
 
 (Signed.) JOHN WEIR. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 5th day of May, A. D., 1845. 
 
 • Signed.) N. R. JENNINGS, 
 
 Clerk U- S. District Court. 
 
 William Hamlet Williamson, of Port Glasgow, Renfrewshire, Scotland, being 
 duly sworn deposes and says, that on Monday night, the twenty-eighth day of Ap r il, 1845, 
 
Captain William B. York requested deponent to assist him in taking out his baggage and 
 property from on board the barque Aldebaran, lying alongside the barque Agneda, of 
 Greenoch, of which this deponent is mate; whereupon this deponent, accompanied by the 
 carpenter of the said barque Agneda, then went on board the Aldebaran and asked Cap¬ 
 tain Turner to point out the baggage of Captain York- he (Captain Turner) went into the 
 cabin with deponent and pointed them out, and while in the act of taking them on board 
 the barque Agneda, aforesaid, the said barque Aldebaran was taken off by the steam tow 
 boat Shark, carrying with her the carpenter of the said barque Agneda, together with 
 most of the baggage of Captain York. That when he, this deponent, was coming out of 
 the cabin with part of the baggage, James Scott met deponent and demanded to know 
 who he, deponent, was, and where Captain York was? Saying “the d—<1 son of a b—h, 
 he thought to get me out of the ship; but we have served him out;” and that then the 
 said Scott ran and let go the stern line. That seeing the said barque Aldebaran swinging 
 off, the deponent sprang on board his own vessel (the Agneda) and called to the carpen¬ 
 ter lo follow him, but he was not quick enough to get out. Deponent further saith, that 
 said Scott (seeing him, deponent, beyond reach) called out to him, saying, “where are 
 you now?—you had better come and take Captain York’s things on shore.” 
 
 (Signed.) W. IIAMLET WILLIAMSON. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 6th day of May, A. D., 1-845. 
 
 (Signed,) N. R. JENNINGS, 
 
 Clerk U. S. District Court: 
 
 William Broader York, of Hull, England, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that 
 he was lately Master of the barque Aldebaran, that the said barque was forcibly arrested 
 from his command and sent to sea; that finding Richard Harrison Chilton was determined 
 to send the barque to sea, in defiance of all law and authority, on the twenty-eighth day of 
 April, 1845, in tow of the steam tow boat called the “Geneva,” he attempted to go on board 
 to get out his baggage and property, when James Scott, mate of said barque, stood on the 
 rail of said vessel, near the gangway, where there was a plank placed, leading from the 
 wharf to the barque, in an attitude of defiance, and that while deponent was on said plank 
 
 said Scott called out to those on deck, “ shove the d—d son of a b-h overboard,” and 
 
 then with the assistance of some of the crew, the said Scott pushed the plank forcibly off the 
 vessel; that deponent with difficulty gained the edge of the wharf, when immediately after¬ 
 wards the said barque was taken off by the said steam tow boat “ Geneva,” carrying with 
 her the keeper appointed by the United States Marshal, and who had her then in charge 
 and under seizure; that the deponent and the said keeper both forbid all persons then and 
 there concerned, not to take off said barque from her said moorings; thatshe was shortly af¬ 
 terwards brought back to the Levee, (alongside of the barque Agneda,) by the orders and 
 direction of J. P. Walden, one of the deputy Marshals, who employed the steam tow boat 
 “ Star” for that purpose, and immediately after which the said barque Aldebaran was taken 
 and sent to sea, taking with her a portion of deponent’s baggage and other property, not¬ 
 withstanding that this deponent used every exertion to get the same on shore, assisted by 
 William H. Williamson, chief mate, and John Wier, carpenter, of the barque Agneda, 
 which vessel was then lying alongside his said barque; that one of whom, to wit: John 
 Wier, was taken offin the said vessel; that when the said steam boat “ Shark” returned to 
 New Orleans she brought back two trunks, one chest, and one bed and bedding, being a 
 part of this deponent’s property; that the locks of the said chest and trunks had been forced 
 open, and the contents rifled of the following articles, the property of this deponent, and 
 which cost deponent as near as he can recollect, the sums set opposite the name of each 
 
 article,to wit: 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 A full set of Charts, - - - 10 16 0 
 
 Scale,dividors, and parellel rule, - - -14 0 
 
 One new invisible green wrapper, - - 4 0 0 
 
 A lot of Books, amongst which were works on navigation, and direc- i 
 
 tions for sailing, &c., about - - ) 5 0 0 
 
 1 sextant, - * 10 10 0 
 
 1 silver watch, - - - 4 0 0 
 
 1 new black cloth vest, - - - 110 
 
 1 beaver hat, - - - 18 0 
 
 A lot of shirts, under clothing and other wearing apparel, about 3 0 0 
 
 And that there was also taken other of his property in the cabin and about said vessel, viz : 
 1 barometer, - - - 2 17 6 
 
 1 writing desk and contents, about - 12 0 0 
 
 Sundry articles about the cabin of various descriptions, about 5 0 0 
 
 2 pigs, - - * • 2 2 0 
 
54 
 
 That according to the best of deponent’s recollection and belief, the total cost of the afore¬ 
 said articles amounts to sixty-one pounds eighteen shillings and six pence, sterling, or about 
 two hundred and ninety-seven dollars and twenty-four cents in federal money. 
 
 This deponent further says, that he has good reason for believing, and that he does believe 
 that James Scott, mate of the barque “ Aldebaran,” committed said theft. 
 
 This deponent further saith. that the said barque was taken off under the command of 
 Benjamin Turner, and that Richard Harrison Chilton, William Mure, John Winthrop, and 
 Richard M. Carter, were present, aiding and abetting in despatching the said barque. 
 
 (Signed,) WILLIAM BROADER YORK. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before the, this 6th May, A. D., 1845. 
 
 (Signed.) N. R. JENNINGS, 
 
 Clerk U. S. District Court. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 20—After the words, Mr. B. here related the following anecdote, read “ rn illustra 
 tion of the respect paid to individual rights, even in monarchial governments.’ - &c. 
 
55 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 Sections XLVIand XLVII of the 7th and 8th Victoria, Cap. 112, quoted in the letter of 
 H. B. M. Consul, on page 14, as his authority for superseding Captain York in the com 
 mand of his vessel; to which is added the XLVIII section of the same act for the better 
 information of all concerned. 
 
 Sec. 46. And whereas great mischiefs have arisen from masters of 
 merchant ships leaving seamen in foreign parts, who have been thus re¬ 
 duced to distress, and thereby tempted to become pirates, or otherwise 
 misconduct themselves, and it is expedient to amend and enlarge the law 
 in this behalf; be it therefore enacted ; That ' if any master of a ship be¬ 
 longing to any subject of Her Majesty shall discharge any person belong¬ 
 ing to his ship or crew, at any of Her Majesty’s colonies or plantations, 
 without the previous sanction in writing (to be endorsed on the agreement) of 
 the Governor or other officer holding the chief authority there, or of the Secre¬ 
 tary or other officer duly appointed by the Government there in that behalf, 
 or in the absence of such functionaries then of the chief officer of customs 
 resident at or near such port or place, or shall discharge any such person 
 at any other place abroad without the like previous sanction, to be so en¬ 
 dorsed on the agreement by Her Majesty’s Minister, Consul, or Vice Con¬ 
 sul there, or in the absence of any such functionary then of two re¬ 
 spectable merchants resident there, such Master shall be guilty of a mis¬ 
 demeanor; or if any Master of any such ship shall abandon or leave be¬ 
 hind at any such Colony or Plantation any person belonging to his ship or 
 crew, on the plea or pretence of unfitness or inability to proceed upon the 
 voyage, or of desertion or disappearance from the ship, without a previous 
 certificate in writing (to be endorsed on the agreement) of the Governor, 
 Secretary, or other officer as aforesaid, or in the absence of such functionary, 
 then of the chief officer of customs resident at or near such port or place, 
 certifying such unfitness, inability, desertion or disappearance, or shall 
 abandon or leave behind any person belonging to his ship or crew at any 
 other place abroad, on shore or at sea, upon such plea or pretence, without 
 the like previous certificate from Her Majesty’s minister, consul, 
 or vice consul there, or in the absence of any such functionary, then of 
 two respectable merchants, if there be any such at or within a reasonable 
 distance from the place where the ship shall then be, such Master shall be 
 guilty of a misdemeanor; or if any Master of any such ship, in case any 
 person belonging to his ship or crew shall desert from the said ship at any¬ 
 place abroad shall neglect to notify the same in writing to one of such 
 functionaries as aforesaid, if there be any such resident at or near the place, 
 and in their absence, if it be out of Her Majesty’s dominions, then to two 
 
5(i 
 
 respectable merchants, if there be such at or near the place, within twenty- 
 four hours of such desertion, such master shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; 
 and the said functionaries are hereby authorized and required, and the said 
 merchants are authorized, to examine into the grounds of such proposed 
 discharge, or into the plea or pretence of such unfitness, inability, deser¬ 
 tion, or disappearance as aforesaid, in a summary way, upon oath, (which 
 oath they are hereby respectively authorized to administer,) and to grant 
 or refuse such sanction or certificate according to the circumstances, and 
 as it shall appear to them to be just. 
 
 Skc. 47. And be it enacted, That if the Master of any ship belonging 
 to any of her Majesty’s subjects, or the mate or other officer of such ship, shall 
 wrongfully force on shore and leave behind, or shall otherwise wilfully and 
 wrongfully leave behind on shore or at sea, in or out of her Majesty’s do¬ 
 minions, any person belonging to his ship or crew, before the completion 
 of the voyage for which such person was engaged, or the return of the ship 
 to the United Kingdom, such Master, Mate or other officer shall be guilty 
 of a misdemeanor; and every misdemeanor mentioned or created by this 
 act shall and may bo prosecuted by information at the suit of Her Majes¬ 
 ty’s Attorney General, or by indictment or other legal proceeding in any 
 Court having criminal jurisdiction in Her Majesty’s dominions at home or 
 abroad; and the offence may be laid and charged in the said information, 
 indictment or other legal proceeding to have been committed in the county 
 or place where the offender shall happen to be, who, being convicted 
 thereof, shall be liable to fine or imprisonment, or both, as to the Court 
 before whom he is tried shall seem meet; and every court is hereby author¬ 
 ized to issue a commission or commissions for the examination of any wit¬ 
 ness or witnesses who may be absent or out of the jurisdiction of the Court; 
 and at the trial of the depositions taken under such commission or commis¬ 
 sions, if such witness or witnesses shall be then absent, shall be receiv- 
 ed in evidence. 
 
 XLVIII. And be it enacted, That if any Master shall, contrary to the 
 provisions of this act, discharge, abandon, or leave behind any seaman or 
 other person belonging to the ship or crew, with or without his consent, if. 
 shall be incumbent on such Master, in any information, indictment, or other 
 proceeding against him, to produce or prove such sanction or respective 
 certificate as aforesaid, or prove the impracticability of obtaining such cer¬ 
 tificate. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM NEWSPAPERS PUBLISHED IN THE 
 CITY OF NEW ORLEANS. 
 
 From the Jeffersonian Republican of Thursday morning , April 17, 1845. 
 SINGULAR AFFAIR. 
 
 Captain York, who came to this port in charge of the British bark Alde- 
 baran, appeared yesterday before Recorder Lewis, to answer the com¬ 
 plaint of Mr. R. II. Chilton, as contemplating a breach of the peace. It 
 seems that in consequence of some misunderstanding, the complainanant 
 
57 
 
 had, through the agency of the British Consul at this port, sought to de¬ 
 prive Captain York of his command—the Consul naming another com¬ 
 mander. Captain York resisted, and manifested his determination to re¬ 
 tain his position on board the Aldebaran by the laws of the United States. 
 The question raised before his Honor was, whether the Consul of a foreign 
 power has the right to control private property belonging to subjects of the 
 nation he represents, to the extent of depriving the captain of a vessel of 
 his command, without any visible misconduct on the part of the latter. 
 Mr. Chilton appeared to sustain his charge, and Jacob Barker, Esq., in 
 behalf of Captain York. Recorder Lewis, after hearing some testimony, 
 postponed further consideration of the subject to this day, at noon. 
 
 From the New Orleans Bee of Thursday , April 17, 1845. 
 
 A novel case in our Courts, came off yesterday before Recorder Lewis. 
 From what we can learn of the case, it appears that during the passage of 
 the British barque Aldebaran, Cafffain York, from'Liverpool To this port, 
 the chief mate, Scott, was, in consequence of disorderly conduct, displaced 
 by order of the Captain. Upon the arrival here of the vessel, a person 
 named Chilton, representing himself as the Agent of the supposed owners 
 of the vessel, called upon the British Consul and requested Captain York 
 should be deposed from command and another captain appointed, which 
 was done by the Consul—the Consignees of the vessel, Messrs. Gordon, 
 Wylie & Co., denying Mr. Chilton’s right of agency, and protesting against 
 the action taken by the Consul. 
 
 Upon Captain York’s going on board of his vessel, he was informed that 
 unless he left immediately, he would be placed under arrest. Upon his 
 refusal to go on shore he was arrested by the officers of the Third Munici¬ 
 pality police, and thrown into prison, from which he was shortly released 
 on bail. The examination of the case, which commenced yesterday, was 
 continued over until to-dav. Jacob Barker, Esq., appears as Counsel for 
 Captain York. 
 
 The question at issue is, whether a Consul has a right to depose a cap- 
 tain of a vessel, against the will of the consignees. 
 
 From the Jeffersonian Republican of Friday, April 18, 1845. 
 
 THE STATE vs. WILLIAM B. YORK. 
 
 Recorder Lewis resumed the examination of this case yesterday, when 
 John Winthrop, Esq., accompanied by the British Consul, appeared on be¬ 
 half of the prosecutor. Messrs Barker and Latour for the defendant. At 
 the commencement of the proceedings, a point was raised by the defendant’s 
 counsel, claiming right the of cross-examining the prosecutor. Mr. Win 
 8 
 
58 
 
 throp insisted that the prosecutor, having made the affidavit, had complied 
 with all the requirements of law, and could not be forced to support his al¬ 
 legation by being questioned further. This objection was overruled by the 
 Court. 
 
 The whole of the examination then turned upon questions as to the real 
 ownership of the Aldebaran, and if these owners had, or had not, given to 
 Mr. Chilton the power which he contends he has, to act as agent of the 
 vessel. This question was investigated at large, and finally postponed 
 until this day, for Mr. Chilton to produce certain letters, in which he con¬ 
 tends such authority to him is given. So far as the evidence has gone, 
 the only business or commission which appears to have devolved on Mr. 
 Chilton is, the responsibility of advising Captain York in reference to the 
 purchase of an “old flat boat” to break up for dunnage. The affidavit 
 sets forth that Mr. Chilton, as agent, feared that Captain York, coming on 
 board his own vessel, might commit a breach of the peace, he having been 
 deposed from such command by authority of the British Consul, foralledged 
 misconduct; but what the nature of that conduct is, has not transpired as 
 yet. 
 
 ^ finr nuLj.*.,nMnnipiUi. lmrl tnlim pfaafe Mr. Mure, the British Consul, 
 requested permission to address the Court—not in reference to this partic¬ 
 ular case however, only so far as his name as Consul had been mixed up 
 with it. This was granted. 
 
 Mr. Mure then defined his position as Consul, and went on to inform 
 the Court as to the extent of his authority as regards British subjects; and 
 particularly the captains, sailors and apprentices. He contended 
 that he was not amenable to the laws of the United States for any 
 of his official acts, that the laws of England gave him sovereign 
 authority; and, that it was more an act of clemency on his part, than other¬ 
 wise, that he had not dealt with Captain York more harshly; that his au¬ 
 thority over refractory commanders of British vessels, was the same as it 
 was over mates, seamen, and apprentices ! and that Great Britain did not 
 make one law for the captain and another for the sailor. He concluded 
 by saying something to the effect that for his official acts he held himself 
 responsible to his government at home ; but that he could recognize no 
 authority to call him into question here. 
 
 The expression of some of Mr. Mure’s views caused a great sensation 
 in the Court; and once, during the asservation of such powers being vested 
 in him, he was interrupted by the overstrained feelings of Mr. Latour, 
 who gave vent to them in a few thrilling, remarks in opposition to such, 
 sentiments. Mr. Barker wished the Consul not to be interrupted, and 
 when he had concluded, desired to reply; but as this was no part of the 
 case, he desisted, and will reserve his remarks for the closing argument. 
 
 The utmost excitement was manifested by the thronged Court for the 
 decision of this case, which we suppose will be concluded to-day. 
 
 From the Jeffersonian Republican of April 19, 1845. 
 STATE vs: WILLIAM B. YORK. —THIRD DAY. 
 
 Recorder Lewis, at the hour appointed yesterday, resumed the investiga- 
 
 • \ 
 
59 
 
 tion of this case; after waiting a considerable time for the appearance of 
 the prosecutor, his counsel, or the British Consul, but neither of them ap¬ 
 pearing, his Honor determined to go on with the case, as the prisoner and 
 his counsel were in attendance. 
 
 The Recorder in the commencement stated that inasmuch as the ques¬ 
 tion of authority had arisen in the necessary investigation of this case, that 
 he should have to pass upon it; but in doing so he wished it to be clearly 
 understood, that whatever his decision might be, that it was not intended to 
 interfere with the rights of either party. 
 
 Mr. Barker, for the defendant, produced several documents in relation 
 to the case, which were filed and form a part of the record; these com¬ 
 prise, among other things, an interesting correspondence with the British 
 Consul. 
 
 Several British ship-masters were then examined on behalf of Captain 
 York, who all testified to his peaceable deportment and ability as a com¬ 
 mander; during the examination of one of whom, Mr. Chilton made his 
 appearance, and stated as a reason for not producing his authority to act 
 as agent, (required of him on Thursday) was a supposition that a compro¬ 
 mise, for which negotiations had been pending, would supersede the neces¬ 
 sity for further proceedings. 
 
 The prosecutor did not seem to be aware of the difference between a 
 prosecution on the part of the public and that on the part of individuals. 
 This is a State prosecution, on the affidavit made by Mr. Chilton, and the 
 law does not allow of compromises in such matters. 
 
 In all criminal prosecutions, those complained of have only to defend 
 themselves. The counsel for Captain York expressed an earnest desire 
 that the full time should be given to the prosecutor to produce eveiy thing 
 pertaining to his authority. 
 
 It is important, said Mr. Barker, that the record should exhibit the 
 whole story, and spoke at some length in an able manner, contending that 
 his client was on his defence, and should have a speedy deliverence. He 
 further stated that the record of these proceedings would be sent to Eng. 
 land to refute or explain the statement which, as was understood from Mr. 
 Chilton, had already gone from the other side to the British Minister at 
 Washington, therefore he, Mr, B., did not complain of this suit going on, 
 pending the negotiation for a compromise of other matters, and thought it 
 did not become the prosecutor to find fault with the exertions of his client 
 to get out of prison, where he had been incarcerated with the lowest of 
 this community, or to be released from the bonds given to answer this 
 charge. 
 
 The Court finally allowed further time for Mr Chilton to produce his let¬ 
 ters, and for that purpose adjourned the case to one o’clock this day. 
 
 —— •% 
 
 From the New Orleans Bee of April 19, 1845. 
 RECORDER LEWIS’ COURT. 
 
 6TATE VS» WILLIAM B. YORK. -THIRD DAY. 
 
 Yesterday morning the Recorder resumed the examination — but neither 
 
«u 
 
 Mr. Chilton, his counsel, or the British Consul made their appearance in 
 Court, though an hour was spent waiting for them. 
 
 The Recorder stated in resuming the case, that inasmuch as the question 
 of ownership and the accredited agency of the barque Aldebaran, had 
 been brought up in the investigation, it was incumbent upon him to decide 
 whether Captain York was justified or not, in the course he had pursued, 
 but in so doing, he wished to be clearly understood, that he did not wish to 
 interfere with the rights of either parties. 
 
 Mr. Barker opened the case for Captain York, and filed several docu¬ 
 ments in relation to it—after which he called several captains of British 
 vessels to testify as to the conduct of Captain York. 
 
 These witnesses with singular unanimity, all concurred in giving the 
 prisoner an excellent character, his peaceable deportment and good man¬ 
 agement as a commander; and also, testified to the abusive conduct of 
 Scott, his mate, to him while in port, and through whose representations the 
 British Consul superseded Captain York, and placed him in command. 
 (This same man has since been reduced to mate, and another person ap¬ 
 pointed as captain.) 
 
 During the examination of these witnesses, Mr. Chilton made his ap¬ 
 pearance, and gave as a reason for his non-attendance, that he thought a 
 compromise, which had been proposed to Captain York, would supersede 
 the necessity of further proceedings, and that was also a reason why he 
 did not produce the letters required of him. 
 
 Mr. Barker expressed a wish that ample time should be given for their 
 production, and at the same time went on at length to show that no com¬ 
 promises could be entered into to intercept criminal prosecutions, and urged 
 the case to be proceeded with in a legal manner, that full justice should be 
 done to his oppressed client, who had been incarcerated with felons and 
 drunkards, and was still under bonds to appear and answer the complaint 
 of this pretended agent; but at the same time desired every opportunity to 
 be given to the other side to produce all the evidence in their power. 
 
 The Court then adjourned the case to one o’clock this day—when the 
 arguments of counsel will be heard and the case no doubt disposed of. 
 
 The Court was crowded to excess. * 
 
 This case in its present bearings presents one seldom heard of in this 
 country, and we trust never will again. A master of a vessel has reason 
 to complain of his mate—he does so—the mate rejoins and complains of the 
 Captain. Mr. Chilton pretends that he has authority to act as agent of the 
 vessel—but pertinaciously withholds the proof—makes a complaint to the 
 Brit'sh Consul, who forthwith, without any ceremony displaces Capt. York— 
 and places his disobedient mate in command, who in his turn applies the most 
 abusive epithets to his lawful commander—the commander seeks for advice, 
 being a young man, and his first voyage in that capacity, i. e. to maintain those 
 rights given him by his owners, and which have never been countermand¬ 
 ed, is arrested on a warrant under the fears of Mr. Chilton—that in exer¬ 
 cising that authority given him by the laws of nations—he will commit a 
 breach of the peace. Then in order to establish such proof being called 
 upon for his authority, he withholds it upon the plea that the letters con* 
 
61 
 
 taining it, relate also to other. matters, together with other frivolous 
 excuses—during all which time the oppressed defendant and his friends 
 are compelled to dance attendance upon a police court, and then sought to 
 enter into compromise—the end of which would place him again on board 
 his vessel to go home, if the proposition ofthe British Consul were acceded 
 to, for further persecution. < 
 
 From the Jeffersonian Republican of Monday , 21 st April. 
 
 STATE vs. WM. B. YORK—FOURTH AND LAST DAY. 
 
 Recorder Lewis at the hour appointed on Saturday, resumed the exami¬ 
 nation, neither the prosecutor, his counsel, or the British Consul made 
 their appearance, consequently Mr. Chilton’s authority was again minus. 
 It is proper to state here that some time during the morning Mr. Chilton 
 made application to the Recorder, to permit him to withdraw his affidavit 
 and dismiss the case. This His Honor very properly refused on the 
 grounds that Mr. Chilton having made an affidavit against the person of 
 an individual, on behalf of the peace and dignity of the State of Louisiana, 
 must go through and prove, or fail to prove his allegation; and next, that 
 no dismissal could take place without the presence of, or consent of the 
 accused, who had demanded a thorough investigation. 
 
 Mr. Barker, for accused, called on Edward Mason, the second mate of 
 the barque Aldebaran, to produce the log-book of the vessel—this witness 
 was then sworn, and testified that the record of the incidents and facts 
 contained in the log book were written by him. Those entries made in 
 the log book having particular reference to the misconduct of James Scott, 
 the chief mate, on Thursday, 27th February; Sunday, 2d March; and 
 Thursday, 13th March, last, are in his hand writing, and were signed by 
 the Captain, now copied on the record of the Court. The entries on the 
 log-book were sometimes not made up from the slate on the days they 
 bear date, but as soon as he had time afterwards, sometimes a day or two. 
 
 Here Mr. Scott, Mate of the Aldebaran, was permitted to cross-exam¬ 
 ine the witness, who stated that “ what is written in the log by me is not 
 true , according to my notion.” 
 
 Mr. Barker requested him to look at the log-book particularly, and point 
 out those points which he, the witness, considered untrue, he did so, and 
 pointed out one or two immaterial errors in the account he had written of 
 what happened after the arrival of the vessel in port, and which had a ten¬ 
 dency to contradict his answer to Scott. The witness being further ques¬ 
 tioned, stated that he had looked carefully, and particularly so at the day's 
 work copied in the record of this case , and could not find any other errors 
 in the log-book; the witness then recognized two keys produced by Capt. 
 York, as belonging to the doors of rooms in the cabin of the vessel, after 
 which nothing of importance was elicited. 
 
 Captain Frazer, of the British barque Pollock, being sworn, stated that 
 he was present when Captain York was arrested, and accompanied him 
 
62 
 
 to, and saw the persons with whom he was incarcerated in the calaboose 
 —he also corroborated the evidence of others, as to the good conduct of 
 Capt. York, and the good condition of the vessel. 
 
 Mr. Verin, chief mate of the British ship Bradshaw, was also offered as 
 a witness to prove the intemperance of Mr. Scott, the deposed mate, who 
 it had been attempted to appoint Captain of the Aldebaran, over the head' 
 of Captain York—but the Court not deeming this testimony immediately 
 applicable to the case, ruled it out. 
 
 Mr. Barker then addressed the Court in behalf of the accused; for 
 whose speech see page 17. 
 
 The Court, in a very few moments, delivered the following judgment: 
 “ There being no just cause of apprehension of an intention, on the part 
 ot the accused to commit a breach of the peace proved in this case, the 
 complaint is therefore dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the 
 parties. 
 
 The Court was very crowded, and we must say we never saw more 
 warmhearted sympathy expressed for any man than did Captain York’s 
 brother ship masters feel for him, and we trust in a few hours, to see the 
 Captain proudly walking his own deck in compliance with his rights, his 
 instructions, and strict justice. 
 
 From the Captain and Seaman’s Advocate , May 4, 1845. 
 JACOB BARKER’S SPEECH, 
 
 IN DEFENCE OF SAILOR’S RIGHTS. 
 
 The trial of Captain York, of the barque Aldebaran, occasioned very 
 great interest for several days, and elicited much talent, ingenuity and re¬ 
 search from learned counsel, from whose efforts we select the speech of 
 Jacob Barker, Esq., (as reported for the Jeffersonian Republican) and 
 claim for it the attention of maritime men, as peculiarly addressed to their 
 interests. It is a masterly defence of Captain York, and by its force and 
 irresistible reasoning, must have broken down the bulwarks of opposition, 
 had not Captain York been guarded by a defence stronger than cuirass of 
 steel—his innocence of the charge alleged against him, and the full per¬ 
 formance of his duty, as evidenced in Court. Every captain, every sailor 
 should be in possession of this soul stirring and eloquent speech. The re¬ 
 ference made by the venerable advocate, to the spring-time of life, when 
 the blue-jacket and tarpaulin were familiar things to him, is calculated to 
 bring a tear to the eye of many an “old salt.” Subordination on board 
 ship must exist, or discipline is gone, and the vessel might as well be sent 
 adrift in a gale without a rudder. Every man should know his duty and 
 then do his duty. It should be remembered by each individual that, he 
 does not alone hold his own life in his hands, but upon him depends the 
 lives of his messmates, his captain and all who sail beneath his flag. The 
 wild ocean is no tame and gentle plaything, and danger lurks beneath every 
 wave. One wrong step and all is lost. Then the responsibilitity of every 
 individual from the captain to “the man before the mast,” is incalculable. 
 That the master of the Aldebaran did his duty, we feel convinced, and to 
 convince others, beg to refer to Mr. Barker’s speech. 
 
v 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 *: f 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 ... 
 
 
 
 
 ► 
 
 
 w i 
 

 
 
 I - 
 
Panrohlets. 
 
 
 
 
 L15^94l 
 
 Vol.905 
 
 DATE 
 
 ISSUED TO 
 
 U *54^41 
 
 \joi‘\o6'