EXPRESS.

Ship under United States colours and register; cargo guano, shipped by
Senan, Valdeavellano and Co., at Callao, and consigned to J. Sescau and
Co., at Antwerp. On the back of this bill of lading is the following
endorsement: "Nous soussignes charge d'affaires et consul general de
France a Lima, certifions que la chargement de mille soixante douze de
register de Huano specifie au present connaissement, est propriete
neutre."

Fait a Lima, le 27 Janvier, 1863.

(Signed and impressed with the Consular seal.)

This certificate fails to be of any value as proof, for two reasons:
first, it is not sworn to; and secondly, it simply avers the property to
be neutral (the greater part of it, for it does not touch the guano in
sacks), instead of pointing out the owner or owners. A Consul may
authenticate evidence by his seal, but when he departs from the usual
functions of a Consul, and becomes a witness, he must give his testimony
under oath, like other witnesses. This certificate, therefore, does not
even amount to an _ex parte_ affidavit. If the property had been in the
shipper's or consignee's name, it would have been quite as easy to say
so as to put the certificate in its present shape. Why, then, was the
simple declaration that the property was neutral made use of?--the law
with which every Consul, and more especially a charge d'affaires, is
supposed to be acquainted with, declaring them to be insufficient? The
conclusion from these two facts--viz., that there was no oath taken, and
that there was no owner named--seemed to be that the Consul gave a sort
of matter-of-course certificate, upon the application of some one who
declared the property to be neutral, perhaps with a knowledge to the
fact, or contrary to the fact, neither party taking any oath. Now, the
presumption of law being, that goods found in an enemy's ship belong to
the enemy, unless a distinct neutral character be given to them, by
pointing out the _real owner_, by proper documentary proof, as neither
the bill of lading nor the certificate, which is a mere statement of a
fact, like the bill of lading, not under oath, nor the Master's
testimony, who knows nothing (see his deposition) except as he has been
told by the shipper, amounts to proper documentary proof, the ship and
cargo are both condemned. It must be admitted that this is a case in
which, perhaps, a prize court would grant "further proof;" but as I
cannot do this, and as a distinct neut