Note 1 — LA VIRGEN DEL ROSARIO Y EL SANTO CRISTO DE BUEN VIAGE.

This document, and all that follow relating to this case, nos. 184-196, are derived from the files of the vice-admiralty court which during the colonial period sat in New York. They are preserved in the offices of the United States district court in that city. In the case of the colonial admiralty courts which sat in Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston, only the record-books of those courts, from which several of our documents were obtained, have survived, and of the other courts apparently nothing; but from the New York admiralty court we have, besides records, a copious mass of papers relating to the cases, preserved by an exceptionally careful assistant register. By the care of Hon. Charles M. Hough, U.S. circuit judge, these papers have been arranged, mounted, and bound in model fashion. In interpreting the papers here printed, the editor has been much assisted by an opportunity to read a manuscript of Judge Hough's concerning them.

The case of the Virgen del Rosario, more exactly the cases of Richard Haddon v. 10 Doubloons, etc., of Ybañez v. £2409, and of the King v. Thomas Miller and Sampson Simpson, give excellent illustrations of the chicanery with which prize cases could be conducted and of the manner in which through admiralty courts the ends of justice could be defeated. The materials are copious. The history of the capture is sufficiently set forth in docs. no. 187 and no. 188. The legal history of the case may be summarized as follows. Sept. 20, 1756, Nathaniel Marston and Jasper Farmar petition governor and council for a privateer's commission for the Peggy or Charming Peggy, whereof Richard Haddon was to be commander, Christopher Miller lieutenant; Cal. N.Y. Hist. MSS., II. 659. Sept. 29, 1756, the commission is granted. Dec. 7, 1756, the Peggy captures the schooner La Virgen del Rosario y el Santo Christo de Buen Viage, plunders her, and lets her go. (It will be remembered that Great Britain was not at war with Spain at this time, but only with France.) Mar. 5, 1757, the Peggy arrives at New York, "having taken as many Prizes during her Cruize as she could well man"; Pennsylvania Gazette, Mar. 10. Mar. 9, Haddon libels the plunder (doc. no. 184). Mar. 31, the admiralty judge decrees that it shall be his, provided no better claimant arises within a year and a day, and provided he furnishes sureties to the register of the court to the value of £2409. 4s. 11d.; notes of Sir William Burrell on this case in Reports of Cases determined by the High Court of Admiralty and upon Appeal therefrom, temp. Sir Thomas Saulsbury and Sir George Hay, ed. R.G. Marsden (London, 1885), pp. 185-186. July 26, 1757, the sureties present their account of sales (doc. no. 186). Feb. 17, 1758, and Mar. 10, on pressure from London, where Captain Ybañez has made his complaint, the advocate general in New York files a claim for money and goods, in the king's name, to restore them to the Spaniards. Apr. 5, the sureties demur. Apr. 19, the judge dismisses the advocate general's claim. Sept. 27, 1758, Ybañez files his own claim or libel (doc. no. 188), but the judge rules Feb. 10, 1759, that his time had expired (Marsden, loc. cit.). Dec. 19, 1760, the Lords Commissioners of Appeals in Prize Causes reverse the colonial court, and condemn the captor in costs and damages (ibid., and doc. no. 195). July 4 and 26, 1761, the New York judge declares that, while the Lords of Appeal had apparently reversed his decree of Mar. 31, 1757, on Haddon's libel, they had not reversed his decree of Feb. 10, 1759, on that of Ybañez, the decree actually appealed from (court papers). But so the matter had been dragged on until, Jan. 4, 1762, Great Britain declared war against Spain, and it may be considered certain that Ybañez never recovered anything; perhaps he did not deserve to, for pretty clearly he had been violating or evading the laws of his own country.

Meanwhile, July 14, 1758, the advocate general, on account of irregularities on Haddon's part violating his commission as a privateer, had sued his bondsmen (King v. Miller and Simpson). Their counsel moved for a commission to take evidence in Havana, which was granted by the court, Sept. 2, 1758; hence docs. nos. 189, 191-194. June 27, 1761, on all the evidence now collected, the court decreed forfeiture of the bond. July 7, 1761, the sureties appealed (doc. no. 196), but there is no record evidence that their appeal was ever perfected, or that they ever paid. See doc. 196, note 1.