Consul at Boston applied for redress on behalf of Mr. Pagan, to the Governor of Massachusetts Bay, who, in his letter of the 28th of January, 1791, was pleased to recommend this matter to the serious attention of the Senate and House of Representatives of that State.  On the 14th of February, 1791, the British Consul memorialized the Senate and House of Representatives on this subject.  On the 22nd of February, a committee of both Houses reported a resolution, that the memorial of the Consul and message from the Governor with all the papers, be referred to the consideration of the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, who were directed, as far as may be, to examine into and consider the circumstances of the case, and if they found that by the force and effect allowed by the law of nations to foreign admiralty jurisdictions, &c.  Hooper ought not to have recovered judgment against Pagan, the court was authorized to grant a review of the action.  On the 13th of June,’ 1791, the British Consul again represented to the Senate and House of Representatives, that the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court had not been pleased to signify their decision on this subject, referred to them by the resolution of the 22nd of February.  This representation was considered by a committee of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, who concluded that one of them should make inquiry of some of the judges to know their determination, and upon being informed that the judges intended to give their opinion, with their reasons, in writing, the committee would not proceed any further in the business.  On the 27th of June, 1791, Mr. Pagan’s counsel moved the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court for their opinion in the case of Hooper and Pagan, referred to their consideration by the resolve of the General Court, founded on the British Consul’s memorial.  Chief Justice and Justice Dana being absent, Justice Paine delivered it as the unanimous opinion of the judges absent as well as present, that Pagan was not entitled to a new trial for any of the causes mentioned in the said resolve, and added, ’that the court intended to put their opinions upon paper and to file them in the cause:  that the sickness of two of the court had hitherto prevented it, but that it would soon be done.’

It is somewhat remarkable, that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Bay should allege, that this case did not necessarily involve a question relative to prize or no prize, when the very jury to whom the court referred the decision of the case established the fact; their verdict was for three thousand and nine pounds two shillings and ten pence, damages, which sum is for the vessel called the brigantine Thomas, her cargo, and every thing found on board.  Hence it is evident, that the case did involve a question of prize or no prize, and having received a formal decision by the only court competent to take cognizance thereof (viz. the High Court of Appeals for prize causes