The case against the Phoebe proceeded quickly, in lock-step with that of the Prudent, beginning with the Libel on August 15th [1], followed soon thereafter by the Attachment [2] on the 22nd, then two readings of the Proclamation on the 25th and 26th [3].

At this point,  the two cases parted ways. In the Prudent’s case, no one answered at the second reading of the proclamation and the District Attorney immediately  moved for a condemnation order. For the Phoebe, no one appeared to answer the second reading of the proclamation either, but there were no further motions. Presumably the court knew that the case would be contested. Indeed, several court sessions later, on September 9th,  attorney William Tilghman filed a claim for the Phoebe on behalf William McLeod of Charleston. South Carolina and was granted a continuance to allow him time to prepare an Answer [4].

William Tilghman (1756-1827)  was one of  many distinguished Philadelphia lawyers to participate in this case. A slave holder himself, he owned a plantation in Maryland but moved to Philadelphia where he developed a successful private law practice. He was appointed to be chief justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1805 and served in that position until his death in 1827.[]

William McLeod (1752-1804) was a well established merchant and slave trader from Charleston. Born in Scotland, he arrived in South Carolinia in the immediate aftermath of the of the American Revolution and conducted slaving ventures with partner Thomas Twemlow of Liverpool, England. Following South Carolina’s ban on slave imports in 1790, he removed to Savannah, Georgia and continued his business there, but ultimately returned to Charleston when Georgia also banned foreign slave importation in 1793.  All in all, McLeod’s business ultimately brought more than 1,900 Africans to North America and he died a wealthy man, leaving an estate valued in excess of $100,000, about $2,000,000 today. He left no known descendants, his wealth passing to the children of his sister Elizabeth McLeod Wylie. He is buried in First Scots Presbyterian Church Cemetery, Charleston.[]

A week later, on September 16th, two more parties, Augustine Baudequin and Matthias Balthazar filed a Libel in the District Court “claiming restitution of seventy six negroe slaves part of the cargo of the sd schooner [the Phoebe].”  The filing of a libel, as the first formal step in a suit, suggests that the plaintiffs desired that their interests be treated separately from McLeod’s. The U.S. objected to this approach at first, moving that the libel be dismissed, enabling  “the Libellants to file a Claim and Answer to the same Effect” that is, simply combining their defense with McLeod’s.  However, the motion was withdrawn the next court day.  Going forward, it’s never quite clear from the extant records if there was one case or two.

So, the owners of the Phoebe and its cargo were prepared to assert their claim to the vessel and slaves in court, but in order to do so, they needed sworn testimony from witnesses who were in Cuba. Consequently, on September 26th, Judge Peters ordered the creation of a “Commission to the Havannah” to take sworn depositions and return them to the District Court. A copy of the commission is held in the Abolition Society Papers at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania [].

Peters appointed three commissioners, one for the United States, John Morton, and two for the plaintiffs,  Joseph Yznardi and William Patterson. Morton was the U.S. consul in Havana.  Both he and Yznardi were known to Capt. Mullowny, having dined with him aboard the Ganges on its previous voyage to the West Indies [**]. The identity of William Patterson is less certain. He may the Baltimore merchant of the same name who was an active trader of the time period, but he makes no further appearance in any other records related to the case uncovered to-date.

Following the creation a commission,  the free/slave status of the Phoebe’s Africans was not yet settled and, given the the distances involved and the dispersal of witnesses, it was likely to be long time before it was. Presumably, those responsible for the welfare of the Africans were not too keen to care for them indefinitely. Consequently, the Abolition Society proceeded with a plan to indenture the Phoebe’s Africans contingent upon their future free status, and if the court ruled ultimately that they were slaves, to return them to their their putative owners.

So, beginning on September 30, 1800 – four days after the commission order – the Society began arranging indenture contracts between the Phoebe’s Africans and masters throughout the Philadelphia area. Initially, they filled out standard, pre-printed indenture forms, but soon thereafter used custom-printed forms for the 110 of the Phoebe’s surviving captives. This approach helped insure a certain level of uniformity among the indentures. Most importantly, each master was required to post a $400 bond to insure the interests of the claimants were protected.

NOW the Condition of the above Obligation is such, That if the suit or suits, claim or claims for restitution of the said Africans, now depending, or hereafter may be prosecuted in the District Court of the United States for the Pennsylvania District, by Matthew Balthagar and Augustine Bodequin, or by William McCleod or James Munro, be finally determined in favor of the said African named Tom – or if the same, or the suit of the United States against the schooner Phoebe shall be finally determined in favor of the claimant or claimants, in such suit or claim, and in such case the said – Robert Mercer – shall deliver the said African Tom – – if alive, to the said John Hall, or his assigns, then the above obligation to be void, else of force [***].

Like the many of the Ganges’ indentures, the bonds were prepared on pre-printed forms, with only the particulars — names, ages, dates etc. — entered by hand for each specific circumstance. Nineteen of these bonds survive in the collections of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Oddly, one name appears that is found nowhere else in the case materials: “James Munro.” We do not know why his interest in the case was not pursued and while it is tempting to hypothesize that this could be the future president, there is no evidence that this is THE James Monroe, then-governor of Virginia. The name is common enough that there are many other possibilities, with no evidence to support any of them. For now, this must remain a tantalizing mystery.

The defendants in the case appear to have taken different approached in their respective defenses. Balthazar and Baudequin, as co-partners, appear to have had only an interest in the slaves themselves — seventy-six to be exact — and not the vessel itself.  Their interrogatory accompanying the Judge Peters’ commission suggests that they were most interested in establishing that they were not American citizens or residents, that they had no interest in the Phoebe itself and that their negroes were simply being shipped “as freight”  and, as such, were not intended to be sold on arrival. Their argument is based on Section 1 of the 1800 statute

That it shall be unlawful for any citizen of the United States, or other person residing within the United States, directly or indirectly to hold or have any right in the slave or property in any vessel employed or made use of in the transportation trade. or carrying of slaves from one foreign country or place to another.

and, since they were foreigners, the law did not apply. What this argument fails to address is what’s found in Section 4:

all persons interested in such vessel, or in the enterprise or voyage in which such vessel shall be employed at the time of such capture, shall be precluded from all right or claim to the slaves found on board such vessel

There is no mention of the citizenship or residency status of the “all persons” to whom the law applies. It’s likely Balthazar and Baudequin argued that it means “Americans  only”. Unfortunately, the court records that might demonstrate this have not survived.

McLeod, as and American citizen with an interest in 45 of the slaves aboard and owner of the Phoebe, took a different approach, namely that he hadn’t broken the Federal law at all This was based on the assertion that the Phoebe was bound for Charleston, not Havana and that she was in Cuban waters only to take on emergency supplies and conduct needed repairs at Matanzes before proceeding to her original destination.

Understanding this odd-sounding argument requires a careful reading of the Federal statute. It prohibits American participation in the foreign slave trade only (delivering slaves to foreign ports). A vessel fitted out and  clearing Charleston for Africa, buying slaves there and then returning to a Unites States port would not be in violation of  FEDERAL law. Further, the statute explicitly states that the authority for controlling the domestic slave trade resided with the states, albeit in a circuitous manner:

nothing in this act contained shall be construed to authorize the bringing into either of the United States, any person or persons, the importation of whom is, by the existing laws of such state, prohibited.

At the time, all the states had banned slave importation, including South Carolina.  However, Mcleod argued that the fact he had violated state law was of no concern for the United States. In a letter to attorney William Tilghman he suggests it is the planters buying the slaves who are assuming the risk, not he, and if South Carolina is looking the other way, well, so be it:

A certificate shall be sent you that Mills was cleared out here as Capt_ and that several Vessels with Negroes from Africa have been in our Port, for weeks at Fort Johnston, without the smallest molestation _ our Custom house officers never took notice of them _ and our State Law was against their being landed _ In general our Planters in the lower country are opposed to the law, and ready to receive them at sea into their boats, when they run the risk of the penaltys

Unfortunately for McLeod, the Phoebe was intercepted off the coast of Cuba, not South Carolina, 700 miles away. The interrogatories of the United States suggest that they had considerable evidence of her true destination, namely:

1. That a Havana merchant, Don Juan Pablo (John Paul) de la Motta, had stated before witnesses (Capt. Mullowney and the American Consul in Havana, John Morton), that the
   

   capture of the said schooner [the Phoebe] & slaves by the ship Ganges had disappointed him of the perquisites which would have arisen to him on the sale of the said slaves, the same begin consigned to him

   McLeod’s claim that the Phoebe was headed to Matanzes may have been a attempt to avoid a connection with this slave trader in Havana.

2. That when captured, the Phoebe was well beyond Matanzes, steering for Havana (which is 60 miles west of Matanzes).
3. That the course the Phoebe took to Cuba came through the Windward Passage, not the Straights of Florida. A more southerly course would suggest that Cuba was the intended destination.
4. That the United States had sworn statements from two members of the Phoebe’s crew that they had been promised a bonus to extend the voyage to Havana. McLeod mentions this in his letter to Tilghman, writing:
   

   The declaration of the two young men, who have entered on board the Ganges, may appear against us but, if I recollect right, they were but boys, and as such unacquainted with the nature of an oath, they might therefore be easily prevailed on, to give such evidence as they were taught _ the month extra pay being offerd, I never heard of, nor do I believe it

   This is but one example where McLeod tries to assign blame to the Ganges crew: the log book is missing, the Phoebe has a patched hole in her hull, there is but one barrel of provisions aboard, etc.. Of course, all of this could have been accomplished by the Phoebe’s crew in advance of her capture. We may never know for certain, but the results suggest the District Court didn’t believe a word of it.

About six weeks later, in December 1800,  the court minutes record that McLeod’s filing of his  Plea and Answer.[] They then fall silent for almost a year and a half. Both the legal process and the vagaries of fortune conspired to make life very difficult for the owners of the Phoebe and her “freight”.

In order to win their suit, McLeod, Balthazar and Baudequin needed to provide sworn testimony to support their position. As noted above, this required, among other things, that a commission be sent to Havana. Witnesses were hard to locate. In a letter dates April 1801, Mcleod reported to William Tilghman:

Your esteemd favr of the 22d Jany [1801] with the enclosures therein mentioned I received some time ago on my return from the Country; at that time, none of the Phoebe’s people were here, nor are any now here, all are gone to sea and, except one who is expected in a week or two, I do not know when, or where, they may be met with.

adding,

I am sorry the commission has been so long detained here. In a week or two more, I hope it will be executed, and that you will in that time receive it after you rec. this.

Others fared no better. In a letter dated January 23, 1802, George Cushing noted to Baudequin that

Mr Dallas informs me you have not forwarded ye comms[the commission] wh[ich] is necessary in prosecuting your suit.

A year and a half after the Phoebe’s capture, the evidence was still not all in.

The lawsuit was only one part of Augustine Baudequin’s troubles. His co-partner, Matthias Balthazar died in Havana in December, 1800. His will, probated in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury in October 1801, suggests that he had property in Cuba, Sierra Leone, Philadelphia (if the suit was successful) and possibly Great Britain.  Baudequin, as partner, presumably had an interest in Balthazar’s estate, but securing it appears to have required his presence each location.

In  letters to William Tilghman from Havana in February 1801, Baudequin noted his partner’s death and introduced George A. Cushing as his representative in Philadelphia. Cushing, a Boston merchant, had interests in Havana and later participated directly in the (illegal) foreign slave trade himself.[]

---

Notes

[1] Libel August 15, 1800 (Engrossed Minutes, 2:257)

The United States V The Sch Phoebe &c	See Infn filed this Day Slave Trade
Libel read and  filed and Process awarded actble [actionable]  next Court Day 22nd instant.

[2] Attachment August 22, 1800 (Engrossed Minutes, 2:259)

The United States V The Schr Phoebe &c	See Infn filed 15 Augst 1800.
Writ of Attachmnt  &c retd “attached” &c.

[3] First and Second Proclamations August 25 and 26, 1800 ((Engrossed Minutes, 2:269, 2:271)

The United States V The Schr Phoebe &c	See Infn filed 15 Augst 1800
And now Proclamation is openly made that if any one hath Aught to say why the said Schooner Phoebe in the Libel mentioned with her Tackle  Furniture Apparel and other Appurtenances should not be condemned agreeably to the Prayer of the and otherwise disposed of as the Law in such Cases  provides and directs. he may appear and he shall be heard – and no Person appeared.

The United States V The Schr Phoebe &c	See Infn filed 15 Augst 1800
And now Proclamation is again made as before – and no Person appears –

[4] Continuance September 9, 1800 (Engrossed Minutes, 2:281)

The United States V The Schr Phoebe &c	See Infn filed 15 Augst 1800 Slave Trade.
And now Mr.  W. Tilghman appears for William McCleod of the City of Charleston & claims the sd Sch. Phoebe &c on his Behalf.  & it is agreed that the Trial of the Cause be continued to allow W. Tilghman a reasonable Time to procure an answer, regularly sworn to by the sd. Claimant.

[5] Libel and Motion September 16, 1800 (Engrossed Minutes, 2:287)

The United States V The Schr Phoebe &c	See Infn filed 15 Augst 1800
The Libel of A. Boudequin & M. Bathazar Claiming Restitution of seventy six Negroe Slaves Part of the Cargo of the sd Schooner is read and filed. Whereupon on Motion of Mr. Rawle for the United States. Rule to show cause on why the said Libel should not be dismissed for the Purpose of enabling the Libellants to file a Claim and Answer to the same Effect.

[6] Motion Withdrawn September 19, 1800 (Engrossed Minutes, 2:289)

The United States V The Schr Phoebe &c
Mr. Rawle withdraws his Motion made on the last Court Day.

[7] Ruling for Commission to the Havannah September 26, 1800 (Engrossed Minutes, 2:291)

The United States V The Schr Phoebe &c
On Motion & by Consent Rule for a Commission to the Havannah –

[] Robert Mercer and John Tittermary Bond May 13, 1800[1801] (Abolition Society Papers, Box 2, Folder 20)

[] Peters’ Order for Commission to the Havannah October 7, 1800 (abolition Society Papers, Box 3A, Folder 5)

United States V Schooner Phoebe		See Information filed. In the District Court of the United States in and for the Pennsylvania District Richard Peters Judge of the District Court of the united States in and for the Pennsylvania District . To John Morton Esquire Commissioners nominated on the Part and Behalf of the Libellants in the above cause and to Joseph M. Yznardi and William Patterson Commissioners nominated on the Part and Behalf of the Claimants.
Know ye that in confidence of your prudence and integrity I have given unto you and by the Presents do give unto you full and authority in the name and by the authority of the United States in pursuance of a rule made in the said District Court in a certain plea civil and maritime therein depending in which the said United States are Libellants against Schooner Phoebe &c. and William Macleod is the claimant. To Call before you at a certain day and place by you for that Purpose to be appointed all and every person and persons who may be named to you by the said United States the Libellants or by William Macleod the claimant as witnesses in the said cause and then and there to examine them on their respective oaths and affirmations on certain Interrogatories hereunto annexed touching the premises and to reduce their testimony to writing and when you shall have so done you are to send the same to the said District Court closed up and under your seals plainly and distinctly set together with this writ.
	Given under my hand and the seal of the said Court at Philadelphia this seventh day of October A.D. 1800 and in the Twenty-fifth year of Independence of the said United States.
D. Caldwell Clk Dist. Ct.	Richard Peters

[**] Knox, Capt. Dudley W., USN (ret), ed., Naval documents related to the quasi-war between the United States and France (Washington, U.S. Government Prining Office, 1937), 5:424.

[] Ingersoll’s  Interrogatory for U.S.  Undated, circa October 1800 (Abolition Society Papers, Box 3A, Folder 5)

United States V Schooner Phoebe

In the District Court of the United States for Pennsylvania District.

Int. First _ Have you or have you not heard or held any conversation, in the presence of and with John Morton Esqr. Consul of the United States for the city of Havanna in the Island of Cuba _ John Mullowney Esqr. Commander of the ship Ganges, belonging to the United States of America and Don Juan Pablo de la Motta Merchant of said city of the Havanna, or either or any of them? Was the owner or master of the said vessel called the Phoebe present at the said conversation. Intrg. Second. Was or was not the said Ship Ganges in the Harbour of the Havanna aforesaid, in the month of July last, did you hear and from whom that the said schooner Phoebe was captured & carried to the said United States, when bound from the coast of Guinea in Africa laden with slaves destined for the Havanna to be there sold & do you know to whom the said Schooner & Cargo was consigned at the Havanna in what manner were the slaves to be there disposed of? On whose account by whom was the said schooner & cargo assigned? Did or did not the said Don Juan Pablo de la Motta then and there say that the capture of the said schooner & slaves by the ship Ganges had disappointed him of the perquisites which would have arisen to him on the sale of the said slaves, the same begin consigned to him on the sale of the said slaves, by the person instructed or interested and concerned in the said schooner & cargo. Intrg. Third _ Do you or do you not know whether the said Schooner and Cargo of slaves was consigned to the Said Don Juan Pablo de la Motta at the Havanna and by whom? Intrg. Fourth _ Have you in your possession any letters or other written communications from the owner, supercargo or other person, concerned or interested in, the said schooner or cargo? If so, please to annex them in your answer to these interrogatories & say if you know or have reason to believe who were the owner or owners of the said schooner or cargo at the time aforesaid? do you know where the said owners or other persons concerned or interested in the said vessel & cargo, did or do reside? What are their names and occupations? Intrg. Fifth. What course did the said schooner Phoebe pursue from Africa? Did she pass through the Bahama straight or through the Windward Passage? How near was she to the Moro Castle when taken? Had she or had she not passed the Matanzes? What course was she then steering? What distance was she from the Moro Castle & the Matanzes how did those places respectively bear from the said schooner when she was taken? What were their distances was she in need of Provisions? Could they have been had at the Matanzes Intrg. Sixth _ Do you know any thing further that may be material to the Parties or either of them, if so please to relate the same fully and at large as if you had been thereto particularly interrogated. J. Ingersoll for the United States

[] McKean, Dallas and Tilghman’s Interrogatory for Plaintiffs Undated circa October 1800 (Abolition Society Papers, Box 3A, Folder 5)

United States Vs Schooner Phoebe	In the District Court of the United States for Pennsylvania District ~ _
Interrogatories on the Part of the Claimant William Macleod ~ _ 1.       Have you any knowledge of the Schooner Phoebe having been consigned to any person & whom at the Havanna on her last voyage from the coast of Africa, if any declare when, how, and from whom such knowledge was ~ obtained & whether the said schooner was bound originally to the Havanna or to any other & what place and whether upon any & what contingency she was to proceed to the Havanna? If your knowledge or information was received in writing annex the said writing or a copy thereof to your answer ~_ 2.       Were any British subjects or other persons not citizens of the United States of America & not having come into & being resident in the said United States, interested & to what amount in the negroes shipped on board of the said schooner & who were the persons so interested & did they ship such negroes as freight in Africa & were they concerned in fitting out the said schooner in the United States?_ 3.       Do you know of any other matter or thing for the benefit of the claimant in this suit _ If any, declare the same as particularly and fully as if you had been particularly & fully as if you had  been particularly interrogated thereto ~
J.B. McKean A.J. Dallas Wm. Tilghman		for the claimant

[] William McLeod’s Plea, Answer and Claim filed December 5, 1800 (Engrossed Minutes, 2:323)

The United States V The Schr Phoebe &c
The Plea, Answer and Claim of William McLeod read and filed.

[] Baudequin to Tilghman February 8, 1801 (William Tilghman Correspondence, Box 14, Folder 11)

Edward[sic] Tilghman Esqr

Sir

Immediately on hearing the melancholy news of the death of my late Partner  M Balthazar I hastened to this place to Arrange the business pending between us and among other Concerns is that of the suit which you are acquainted with in your City. To facilitate that business I have appointed & empowered the Bearer, my particular friend Mr. George A Cushing, to whom I request you will pay every attention & render him Every assistance in your power and to treat him in every respect the same as if I were myself  transacting the Business with you.

I am respectfully Sir
Your most obedient Servt

Augtn BeauDequin
Havana 8^th February 1801

[] Baudequin to Tilghman February 17, 1801 (William Tilghman Correspondence, Box 14, Folder 11)

Duplicate

Edward Tilghman Esqr.                                  Havana 17^th Feby. 1801
Philadelphia

Sir

I had the Pleasure of addressing you by my friend George A. Cushing Esqr. To whom I have given my Power of Attorney to prosecute my claim against the United States, for the recovery of my property on board the schooner Phoebe captured by one of their Vessels of War. He will also furnish whatever funds may be necessary for carrying on the suit, & I rely on your friendship & Exertions thereto.

I have now to request that you will be pleased to forward me by duplicates, a copy of the articles of Copartnership between my deceased friend Mr. Balthazar & myself, duly certified by yhr Spanish & English consul, to enable me to comply with the legal forms of this Government in my settlement of accounts with the Executors of the deceased. You will be pleased also to retain in your own hands, or deposit in a notarial office, the original deed of Copartnership.

Your compliance will greatly oblige

Sir,

Your most obedient servant

Augtin BeauDequin

[] McLeod to Tilghman April 8, 1801 (William Tilghman Correspondence, Box 14, Folder 14)

Charleston 8^th April 1801
Wm Tilghman Esqr
Dear Sir

Your esteemd favr of the 22d Jany with the enclosures therein mentioned I received some time ago on my return from the Country; at that time, none of the Phoebe’s people were here, nor are any now here, all are gone to sea and, except one who is expected in a week or two, I do not know when, or where, they may be met with. The declaration of the two young men, who have entered on board the Ganges, may appear against us but, if I recollect right, they were but boys, and as such unacquainted with the nature of an oath, they might therefore be easily prevailed on, to give such evidence as they were taught _ the month extra pay being offerd, I never heard of, nor do I believe it _ the necessity of her going into port, would, I fancy appear from the provisions found on board when she was captured, which I understood was but one barrel of beef, and that her sails, & riggen, were nearly bad, and that she received from the Ganges a considerable [page 2] a considerable of each &c from the Ganges before she was able to proceed for Philadelphia _ respecting the hole found out to be stopped in her bottom that may have been done since she arrived at Philadelphia _ had it been done by the Capt of her. As an excuse for their going into a Port, they would not certainly have stopped it up at the moment they had most occasion for it, as the Officers I believe were all taken immediately on board the Ganges and not allowed to return. A certificate shall be sent you that Mills was cleared out here as Capt_ and that several Vessels with Negroes from Africa have been in our Port, for weeks at Fort Johnston, without the smallest molestation _ our Custom house officers never took notice of them _ and our State Law was against their being landed _ In general our Planters in the lower country are opposed to the law, and ready to receive them at sea into their boats, when they run the risk of the penaltys If Smith, the 2d mate, carried any papers on board I know nothing of them, none have ever come to my hands tho I saw him repeatedly after his arrival here. [page 3] and he then informed me, that the Logbook was on board the Phoebe when she was taken; that he saw Lieut. Murdoch, and a person who was called a Doctr, who went prize Master in her, have it in their possession to the above he made Oath in Philadelphia at the request of Mr. Boudequin, and farther, that he conceives the Officers of the Ganges ought & must know what became of it _ I hope they will be particularly examined, and if possible obliged to produce it _ I understood it was regularly kept & would clearly show they took their departure from Africa, agreeable to my orders, for this Port _ that she was stearing for the Matanzas for provisions & was, as I understood the Capt:, and not for the Havanna when she was taken _ I am sorry the commission has been so long detained here. In a week or two more, I hope it will be executed, and that you will in that time receive it after you rec. this _ Enclosed you have Fifty Dollars to pay Clerks for copies of papers &c if more is wanted it shall be sent _ With much esteem and respect I remain

Dear Sir
Your most Obed&hServt
Wm Macleod

[three lines crossed out, unintelligible]

[] Cushing to Tilghman April 21, 1801 (William Tilghman Correspondence, Box 14, Folder 15)

Sir

Ever since I’d ye pleasure of seeing you at Your House, have been confined to my Chambers by Indisposition, & am unable to say when ‘twill be in my power to call on you.

I have to request of You a copy of the agreement between Messrs Balthasar & Baudiquin, that I may avail myself of ye first opport. That may offer of transmitting it to ye Havana. Your attending to this soon as possible, say tomorrow, will much oblige me.

I herewith send you  Mr. Baudiquins letter, I remain respectfully yours.

Geo. A. Cushing

At Mr. Whites
No[rth] 8^th St. Tues 4 Oco PM

[On reverse]

G.A. Cushing to WmT
21 Apr 1801
a[nswered] 27 Apl.

[] Cushing to Cuesta May 1, 1801 (Cushing Letterbook)

You have herewith enclosed a notarial copy of the contract between Mess. Baudiquin and Balthazar. It was out of my power to send it before. I have called on Mr. Guenat and delivered Mr. Baudequins order for $.2,000 _ Mr. Guenat was much surprised, & informed me he never had any kind of dealing with Mr Baudequin pro or con. I was astonished at this information & asked Mr. Tilghman (his Lawyer) if he knew in whose hands he had deposited the money, and his answer was that he did not know that Mr. B.coin had any dealings with any man in Philadelphia. I also found that the information Contd. Mr. B. gave me respecting his friends in Charleston was very incorrect, and his conduct considered rather mysterious. Besides this there are some circumstances which have come to light respecting his cause in this court that will have a very unfavorable effect; it amounts to a certainty that the vessel will be condemned __ ‘Tis possible the cargo, or rather the freight may be cleared, but ‘tis considered by Mr. Dallas (the plaintiffs counsil) as a precarious business __ I hope you have not advanced any thing on the prospect of winning this suit, or the pretended friends in Charleston…

I wish you wou’d inform Mr Baudiquin that the counsil employed on the case, is of the first class in point of abilities and reputation.

[] Cushing to Beaudequin July 17, 1801 (Cushing Letterbook)

Mail Augn Beau Dequin                                                              Boston 17^th July 1801

? Your polite favor dated 3d inst. has just been recd. via Philadelphia. I am much surprised at your never hearing from me. I addressed you from Philadelphia, & have frequently mentioned to our friend Mr Cuesta, the subject of your suit. The reason of my not forwarding a copy of your articles of Copartnership before, was for the want of an opport. Respecting Mr. Guenat, I called om him Tued. for an answer that he had not any monies of yours in his hands, & further that he never had any transactions with you. He has gone on a voyage to  Spain. Some unaccountable mistake has happened in this business. I think you must have forgotten the name. Respecting Mr. Milligan of Charleston, can only say that he appeared much disappointed in not receiving some remittances from you. Thre are some circumstances existing which will delay your suit fr the negros. The conduct of the mate of the vessel in which they were shipped is rather mysterious. Certain it is that the vessel & Mr. McLeods negros will be condemned as lawful prizes to the United States, but ‘tis Mr. Dallas’s opinion you will gain your suit. Shou’d you go to Philadelphia, Mr. Tilghman will give you information respecting it, or shou’d you come this way, shall be happy in con[?]ing with you on the subject. I have to be in Phila. In about 5 weeks expressly to attend this business & have not a doubt of its favorable termination. I have never for a moment forgotten your interest, & shall prosecute it to a conclusion. I shall be happy in hearing from you. Direct to me in Boston.

Accept the assurances of my perfect respect and consideration.

[] Cushing to Tilghman August 18, 1801 (William Tilghman Correspondence, Box 14, Folder 19)

Boston Augst 18^th 1801
Wm Tilghman Esqr
Philadelphia

Sir

I am under the disagreeable necessity of troubling you again on the subject of Mr. Augustine Beau Dequin __ He is now here and embarks soon for Africa and has requested me to procure for him two Coppies more of the Articles of Copartnership, executed in the same manner as the others __ __ I wish you to do me the favour or procuring the original of Mr. Dalas and have two coppies executed and forwarded on to me by return of Post. __ I shoud rather have given Mr Dalas this trouble Coud he have done it equally as well, but you knowing the man who did the others, which are conformant to Mr. B_s wishes leads me to hope youd execute the present __
In the course of four weeks I shall do myself the pleasure of calling on you and defraying any expense that may occur ___ ___
I hope Messrs Dallas & McKean have been Industrious for the Interest of Mr.  B ___

I am Sir, respectfully yours__

Geo. A. Cushing

[] Cushing to Beaudequin January 23, 1802 (Cushing Letterbook)

Mail A Beaudequin Phila 23d Jany. 1802

Mr Dallas informs me you have not forwarded ye comms wh is necessary in prosecuting your suit. There is so greatly a difference between the two claims, that is, Mr. Mcleods & yours, that they cannot any longer be considered as one. It is already for your interest to have the Negros sued for without any refference to ye vessel wh brot them. There is not anything now to prevent ye suit from being brot forward, & I shou’d advise your immediate return here wt ye papers. On this subject be kind to write me. Yrs  &c. G.A.C.

[] Postponement May 4, 1802 (Engrossed Minutes, 3:75)

The United States V The Schr Phoebe &c	See Libel &c
The Argument of this Cause appointed for today is postponed by Consent until the next Court Day –

[] Postponement May 7, 1802 (Engrossed Minutes, 3:75)

The United States V The Schr Phoebe &c	See Libel &c
The Argument of this Cause is further postponed by Consent until the 11th inst.

[] Order for Writ of Monition May 14, 1802 (Engrossed Minutes, 3:78)

The United States V The Schr Phoebe &c

On Motion of Mr Dallas it is ordered that a Writ of Monition do issue to be directed to John Mullowney Esquire now or late commander of the public armed Ship the Ganges and generally to all others herein concerned so that they be and appear at a special session of this court on Friday next at 10 oclock A.M. to answer to the Libel of Augusten Boudequin a Subject of the King of Great Britain on Behalf of himself and of Mathias Balthazar as his copartner Owners of seventy six Negro Slaves, Part of the Cargo of the Schooner Phoebe (which said Schooner and cargo were  lately seized  by the said John Mullow[ney] of Philadelphia) praying Restitution of the same &c and other further ordered that the Libel be amended accordingly.

[] Monition Served May 14, 1802 (Engrossed Minutes, 3:80)

The United States V The Schr Phoebe &c
Monition cetd[?] “Served” Mr Lewis appears for John Mullowney

[] Motion for Mullowney to File His Answer May 28, 1802 (Engrossed Minutes, 3:83)

Balt Boudequin &c V Mullowney
On Motion of Mr. Dallas. Rule that John Mullowney Esquire file his answer by the 4th of June inst.

[] Motion and Ruling January 4, 1803 (Engrossed Minutes, 3:123)

The United States V The Schr Phoebe
On Motion of Mr. Dallas – Rule for Hearing on Friday next [7 January 1803. There was no court session this day, and the case is not listed for the following Friday, January 14.].

[] Order for Sale of the Phoebe January 24, 1806 (Engrossed Minutes, 3:339)

The United States V The Schr Phoebe &c
By Consent of Parties – It is ordered that the Schooner Phoebe be sold at public sale by the Marshal to the best and highest Bidder after due and reasonable Notice thereof being first given and that the Proceeds of the sale be brought to the court. This Proceeding in no Wase [Ways] to affect the Merits of the case –

[] Advertisement for Phoebe’s Auction (Philadelphia Gazette, February 7, 1806, 2)

UNITED STATES
Pennsylvania District  ss
By virtue of an order from the honourable Richard Peters, Judge of the District Court of the United States in and for the Pennsylvania District/ will be sold by public vendue, at the Merchants’ Coffee-house, in the city of Philadelphia, ON SATURDAY EVENING, The 8th of February next, ay 7 o’clock, The schoonee[sic] PHOEBE, Together with her tackle, apparel, etc. as sae[she] now lays on the flat of Mr Carmac, Kensington, near Cohocksing creek. — to be sold by
Jno. Smith, Marshal.
Marshal’s Office
Jan 25, 1806