The prize proved to be the Lafayette, from New York, laden with grain for Belfast, Ireland. Captain Saunders readily obeyed the order of the boarding officer to go on board the Alabama with his ship's papers. He was shown into the presence of Captain Semmes, and produced his British consular certificate, with the remark that he supposed that was sufficient protection. After a hasty examination, Semmes said: "New Yorkers are getting smart, but it won't save it. It's a d--d hatched up mess." The Lafayette was burned. The decree of the "Confederate Prize Court," which seems to have comprehended neither more nor less than the Alabama's commander, was in this case as follows: CASE OF THE LAFAYETTE. The ship being under the enemy's flag and register, is condemned. With reference to the cargo, there are certificates, prepared in due form and sworn to before the British consul, that it was purchased, and shipped on neutral account. These _ex parte_ statements are precisely such as every unscrupulous merchant would prepare, to deceive his enemy and save his property from capture. There are two shipping houses in the case; that of Craig & Nicoll and that of Montgomery Bros. Messrs. Craig & Nicoll say that the grain shipped by them belongs to Messrs. Shaw & Finlay and to Messrs. Hamilton, Megault & Thompson, all of Belfast, in Ireland, to which port the ship is bound, but the grain is not consigned to them, and they could not demand possession of it under the bill of lading. It is, on the contrary, consigned to the order of the shippers; thus leaving the possession and control of the property in the hands of the shippers. Farther: The shippers, instead of sending this grain to the pretended owners in a general ship consigned to them, they paying freight as usual, have chartered the whole ship, and stipulated themselves for the payment of all the freights. If this property had been, _bona fide_, the property of the parties in Belfast, named in the depositions, it would undoubtedly have gone consigned to them in a bill of lading authorizing them to demand possession of it; and the agreement with the ship would have been that the consignees and owners of the property should pay the freight upon delivery. But even if this property were purchased, as pretended, by Messrs. Craig & Nicoll for the parties named, still, their not consigning it to them and delivering them the proper bill of lading, passing the possession, left the property in the possession and under the dominion of Craig & Nicoll, and as such liable to capture. See 3 Phillimore on International Law, 610, 612, to the effect that if the goods are going on account of the shipper or subject to his order or control, they are good prize. They cannot even be sold and transferred to a neutral _in transitu_. They must abide by their