United States v. Nine Packages of Linen.

The circumstances attending them are so much alike, that they must all be liable to the samé judgment. The excuse, which applies particularly to this portion of the importation, is, that it was packed up at Caen in the absence of the proprietor, and in such haste and confusion, in consequence of apprehensions entertained at that place of the Prussian troops, that all the mistakes and inaccuracies which have been discovered are attributable to those causes, and did not proceed from any intentional fraud on the part of the owner.

This défence has been treated with great levity by the counsel for the United States, and attempts were made to induce the Court to believe that the testimony, which appears in support of it, has all been fabricated, to suit the purposes of the claimant. But such a body of evidence, whatever suspicions may be entertained by those who have an interest in disbelieving every part of it, must have its influence on a Court, so long as it is mindful of its duty, and does not think itself absolved from every obligation to decide according to the proofs before it.

Both of the persons, who packed these goods, Mr. Bellair, a clerk of the claimant, and Joseph Boissellier, a resident of the city of Caen, prove that the packing took place at night in a cellar of the claimant. That this was done in much haste and confusion, from an apprehension of being discovered by the Prussians, some of whom were quartered in the house of Mr. Vintroux. The packages were sometimes marked the same night, and sometimes not until the next day, which may account why the contents of some of them were marked as being in another.

It was doubted on the argument, whether this apprehension of the Prussians, was well founded, and much was said of the tranquillity of France after the return of Louis the XVIII. which was effected by the battle of Waterloo. But whatever might have been the condition of other parts of that king

United States v. Nine Packages of Linen.

dom, more than twelve witnesses have been examined, most of them residents of Caen, who describe the conduct of the military, who occupied that place, during the fall of the year 1815, as well calculated to excite the fears of the inhabitants about the safety of their property. So great and general was this apprehension, that many buried their valuable effects to place them beyond the reach of the soldiery. It would appear indeed, that previous to Madame Vintroux's receiving directions from her husband, who was then in Paris, to pack up his goods at Caen, to be sent to America, she had determined to have it done merely to send them to some place of greater safety. But it was not only at Caen that excesses were committed by the army of occupation; for it appears, from the examination of Mr. Despierre, a merchant who resides at Alençon, that the inhabitants of that place were also under apprehensions of a military pillage.

There is nothing to detract from the credit due to such a mass of corresponding testimony, but the solitary declaration of one witness who was but two days at Caen, and saw no obstructions to business, the shops being open as usual. Now this may very well be, and yet none of the material facts, on which the claimant relies, are disproved by it. The town may have been very quiet the two days which this witness passed on his party of pleasure at Caen; and yet the soldiers may have behaved very much amiss both before and after; and the alarms and fears, which are spoken of may well have been very general at that place. The troops there were very numerous, and had already committed many outrages. When they might proceed to others still greater, no one could say.

Nor is it any thing against the truth of this representation, that these goods were publicly removed from Caen, and in the day-time. Property in that situation would not be so liable to pillage in a place where any discipline at all was observed, as if it were concealed from public view, but in places to

United States v. Nine Packages of Linen.

which the troops might easily have access, and that at a time when their officers, or those who might feel disposed to check them, were asleep.

The absence of Mr. Vintroux at Paris, while these goods. were packing, and his going direct from that city to Havre, without his ever having been at Caen, since his leaving it in the latter end of August, 1815, is as well, if not more certainly established, as that part of his defence which arises out of the irregularities and violences of the Prussian army. Nor was this an unimportant fact to make out, for it will readily be conceded that more indulgence is due to a merchant whose goods are packed in his absence, than if he had been on the spot to attend to the business himself. The letter signed by him, and annexed to the invoice, although dated at Caen, is proved to have received his signature at Havre, having been previously written at Caen by Mr. Bellair, under the direction of Madame Vintroux, who appears herself to have been a merchant.

The regular name in which the invoice is made out, has also been urged as an argument against the haste under which it is alleged, that these packages were made up. This is accounted for by Mr. Bellair, whose relation is no way improbable. The invoice was made by him, at his leisure, from the memoranda preserved at the time of packing, and he supposed, and so informed Mr. Vintroux, that it was correct.

The sudden resolution of the claimant to come to this country is also treated as a mere pretence. It is not improbable that such intention was first conceived at Havre; but the Court does not think it worth while to employ any time in ascertaining the truth of this representation, feeling, as it does, a repugnance which it is not desirous of overcoming, at condemning a valuable property on a doubtful circumstance, which has not a very important or direct bearing on the immediate point in controversy. With the same remark it

United States v. Nine Packages of Linen,

might dismiss all consideration of the very great surprise which has been expressed at this property's being consigned to Mr. Bouchaud, and being entered by him, after the owner had determined to accompany it, and actually did arrive with it in this city. If it be true, as the Court believes, that this property was put up in the absence of Mr. Vintroux, and the invoice made out by his clerk, it is not easy to conjecture any improper motive for applying to Mr. Bouchaud to make the entry. Mr. Vintroux could very conscientiously have taken the usual oath. A motive, and a fair one therefore, may be assigned for this part of his conduct. This gentleman, being a stranger, might well employ Mr. Bouchaud, who was on the spot, and better acquainted with the manner of doing business at our custom-house. He might also have found it necessary, in order to obtain security for the duties, to place them in the hands of Mr. Bouchaud, who might then as well make the entry also.

It has likewise been imputed, as something more than an oversight, to Mr. Vintroux, that he omitted to apprize the collector of the mistakes, as soon as they were discovered. If the examination had been finished before the seizure, and his silence had then continued, there might have been some ground for this imputation; but a seizure took place so soon as to render impossible any communication, that would have been satisfactory; for, that the claimant contemplated informing the collector of the errors which might be discovered, as soon as the examination was closed, there is some ground to believe, from part of the testimony in the cause. It may be, that the apprehension of a seizure deterred Mr. Vintroux from a disclosure: Such neglect would have been improper, and would have exposed him to very just suspicion. And yet, during the present term, a sentence of restitution has proceeded on the very ground, that a prosecution took place in consequence

United States v. Nine Packages of Linen.

of such information having been given to the custom-house, and in good faith, by the importer himself.

It is but just here, to remark, that the conduct of Mr. Vintroux, after he was apprized of a determination to seize, was ingenuous and very different from what would be looked for, in a person who had, from the beginning, laid a plan to defraud the government. Instead of concealing any part of the property, which might easily have been done, the whole of it being under his control, we find him pointing out where it was, and affording every facility in his power to the officers of the

customs.

This may not be an improper place to remark on the character of the claimant, which, in a proceeding of this nature, is not to be entirely disregarded. All the witnesses, who have had occasion to speak of it, represent him as a gentleman of probity and property, and very highly respected in his own country, and consider him incapable of meditating a fraud of this, or any other kind. It is indeed difficult to persuade oneself that a man of good standing, and fair character in his own country, and of large property, should commence his career in a country, of which he intended to become a member, with a fraud, so easy of detection, from which indeed a miserable saving might have resulted, but not without great hazard, not only of losing a large portion of his fortune, but of fixing on his reputation a stain, which no time could wash away: for it must be remembered that a fraud of this nature cannot be practised, without wilful perjury in the party himself, or, (which would be almost as culpable,) without his procuring or permitting another to swear to what he himself knew to be a falsehood. There was no adequate motive for so deep and unequal a game, nor is it to be reconciled with the former habits and character of the claimant; which, as has just been mentioned, are proved to have been honourable and upright.