IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 V 
 
 // 
 
 {■/ 
 
 ■r 
 
 .c 
 
 
 «^ 
 
 
 fA 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 m 1^ 
 
 ^ m 
 
 t 116 
 
 2.5 
 
 l!£ 
 
 110 
 
 2.2 
 
 2.0 
 
 L8 
 
 U III 1.6 
 
 it 
 
 V2 
 
 <^ 
 
 (p 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^1 
 
 '^W'.i 
 
 /a 
 
 o-», 
 
 /a 
 
 •' %:*^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sdences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 73 W£$T MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872 4503 
 
 
 fV 
 
 ,V 
 
 \\ 
 
 % 
 
 s 
 
 ''2'"' ^* "f» 
 •Hiyji \«^ ^T i-jii. ^ 
 
 O^ 
 
 %^^'>> 
 

 
 % 
 
 ^'' 
 
 i^ 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 II 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 □ Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagee 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag^es 
 
 □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 y 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu6es 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages d6tach6es 
 
 □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 0Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 □ Quality of print varies/ 
 Quality in^gale de I'impression 
 
 □ Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 □ Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du material suppl^mentaire 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieu^e 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 filmdes. 
 
 □ Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 D 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont h\h film6es A nouveau de faqon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl6mentaires; 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 a4X 
 
 28X 
 
 n 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit QiSce d la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — ► {meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6td reproduites avec ie 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant 
 par Ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'imprassion ou d'illustration, soit par Ie second 
 plat, selon Ie cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie 
 cas: Ie symbole —^ signifie "A SUIVRE", Ie 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant Ie nombre 
 d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
2 
 
 
 < 
 

 KKI.ATINfi Tf> 
 
 iTHE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 AVOLUME V/.-WASHINGTON ARBITRATION 
 km GEiSERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 CONTAINING THE RliPORT OF ROBERT S. HALE, AGENT AND COUNSEL OF 
 THE UNITED STATES BEFORE THE C0M)1ISSI()N ON CLAIMS OF CITIZRNS 
 OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST GREAT BRITAIN, AND OF SUB- 
 JECTS OE-IIER BRITAiNNlC MAJESTY AGAINST THE UNITED 
 STATES, UNDER THE TWELFTH ARTICLE OF THE TREATY 
 OE MAY [{, 187 J, BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES 
 AND GREAT BRITAIN; AND GENERAL APPEN- 
 DIX TO PAPERS RELATING TO THE ,^ 
 
 TREATY OF WASHINGTON. ...^f^^ ' "^'""^ '"'^ 
 
 ^D'1 
 
 A 
 
 n^''\ 
 
 OCT rvm 
 
 I 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINT TNG OFFICE. 
 
 1874. 
 
R E P R T 
 
 OF 
 
 ROBERT S. HALE, Esq. 
 
 AOKXT AND COIXSKI, OF 
 
 THE UNITED STATES 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 COMMISSION ON CLAIMS OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN, AND OF SUBJECTS OF HER BRITANNIC 
 
 MAJESTY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, UNDER 
 
 THE TWELFTH ARTICLE OF THE TREATY OF 
 
 8th MAY, 1871, BETWEEN THE UNITED 
 
 STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 IH 
 
, 
 
LETTEll OF iMR. HALE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE. 
 
 OrriOE OF THE Agent of the 
 United States before the Mixed Com:\iission 
 ON Ameuican and British Claims, 
 Washinf/ton, J). C, yoi'cinher 30, 187.'3. 
 
 Sir: Iik submitting the accompanying report of the proceedings and 
 results of the mixed commission under the twelfth article of the treaty 
 between the United States and Great llritaiii of JMay <S, 187 1, I beg to 
 express my profound sense of obligation to yourself for the uniform 
 kindness and consideration I have experienced from you during the 
 Avhole existence of the commission. 
 
 The two years and more of my connection with the commission were 
 years of severe and unremitting labor. The nearly five hundred claims 
 presented to and passed on by the commission involved an immense 
 range of investigation, proofs, and arguments. The transactions out of 
 Avhich they grew extended through four years of time, and involved not 
 only inquiries into the whole history of the late war in its operations on 
 laud, but also a large extent of maritime operations, warlike and com- 
 mercial, and extensive inquiries into the transactions between the hite 
 so-called Confederate States and subjects of the neutral nations of 
 Europe. 
 
 The proofs on the part of the claimants and of the defence, respect- 
 iv^ely, were sought through the archives of all the Departments of our 
 own Government, as well as those of the late confederate government in 
 our hands. Testimony of witnesses was taken on notice, and either on 
 written interrogatories or on oral examinations by counsel attending in 
 person, in almost every State and Territory of the United States, in all 
 the British provinces of INorth America, in Mexico, in several of the 
 West India Islands, in England, Scotland, and IrelanJ, and in Egypt 
 This testimony was taken, in all the cases of British claims against the 
 United States, either by special counsel sent under my instructions from 
 Washington, or by local counsel employed in the vicinity where testi- 
 mony was to be taken. In each of these cases counsel acted under 
 written instructions from myself, as full and specific as a careful exam- 
 ination of each case could enable me to give. 
 
 The few cases of American claims against Great Brit.iin were managed 
 in regard to testimony and arguments, by the private counsel of the 
 claimants, 1 rendering only a general aid and supervision, but not 
 assuming the responsibility either of taking the proofs or preparing the 
 arguments. 
 
AMKRICAN-IIHITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION'. 
 
 IJut ill tlie claims of IJiitish snbjocts ji^ainst tlie IJnitetl States, in- 
 volving about 00 per wiit. in amount of the entire claims before the 
 commission, the solo control and responsibility rested upon me. 
 
 These claims involved about !i^!)<l,000,0()(), ranjuing through an almost 
 infinite variety of facts and circumstances involved in the support of or 
 defence against the claims. The claim as presented by the chiimant in 
 his memorial and proofs often gave the first and only information to the 
 (lovernmentol the existen(!e even of the claim, and involved an in(iuiry 
 into the facts of the case through very circuitous and difticult channels. 
 In such (!ases the Government always stands at a great disadvantage as 
 against privateclainmntSjWho have full knowledge of all the circumstan(!es 
 
 of their own claims, when actual and bona Ji<h,a\H\ of the j)roofs by which 
 they may be established, and who, in the case of fraudulent, simulated, 
 or excessive claims, have facilities in the numufacture of evidence often 
 very dilHcult to be exposed or rebutted by the agents charged with the 
 defence of the tlovernment, and acting through secondary agents often 
 at remote and almost inaccessible points. 
 
 In view of the number and amount of the claims presented, and the 
 importance of the questions to bo determined, the time limited by the 
 treaty for their examination and decision was very short. Two years 
 for the complete examination, trial, and decision of all these cases, nine 
 months of Avhicli time was allowed (six absolutely, and three under 
 limitation) for the presentation of the claims by the claimant, constituted 
 a shorter time than should have been taken for the thorough and satis- 
 factory examination of all the cases. 
 
 The fact that in this scanty time the Government was enabled to 
 make the examination and trial of the cases as thorough as it was made, 
 and to arrive at results so satisfactory, is certainly a subject of congrat- 
 ulation, the awards made by the commission against the United States 
 amounting to only about two per cent, of the claims presented to the 
 commission against them. 
 
 The entire expense of the commission incurred by the United States, 
 including compensation of commissioners and ofRcers of the commission, 
 of the agent and counsel before the commission and his assistants and 
 clerks, of counsel, agents, commissioners, witnesses, &c., in taking tes- 
 timony, and also printing and incidental expenses, has been about 
 $300,000, of which amount about $50,000 will be reimbursed by the de- 
 duction from the amount of the awards, pursuant to article XVI of the 
 treaty. All the memorials, evidence, and arguments were printed for 
 the use of the commission, the expense of printing being borne jointly 
 and equally by the two goveruments. The entire printed matter thus 
 submitted, and now collated and bound, makes up seventy-four octavo 
 volumes, averaging about 800 pages each. 
 
 In an early case before the commission, involving the question of the 
 effect of domicile witliin the United States upon subjects of Great 
 Britain, by paramount allegiance, domiciled within the United States, 
 
 
AdKNTS UKPOIJT. 
 
 Stnti's, iii- 
 lu'l'oie the 
 ne. 
 
 1 iin iilniosf 
 pport of or 
 ^liiimaiit ill 
 itioii to tlic 
 an iiuiniry 
 t channels, 
 vantage as 
 lunistaneos 
 sby whifh 
 sinnihited, 
 ence often 
 d witli the 
 ents often 
 
 1, and the 
 ed by the 
 Two years 
 sasea, nine 
 ree under 
 instituted 
 and satis- 
 
 nabled to 
 ras made, 
 con grat- 
 ed States 
 ed to tlie 
 
 (1 States, 
 amission, 
 ants and 
 king les- 
 m about 
 )y the de- 
 I of the 
 in ted for 
 e jointly 
 tter thus 
 ir octavo 
 
 )n of the 
 
 )f Great 
 
 States, 
 
 Hon. I'ibenezcr Kockwood Hoar, of IVrasHaehusetts, was retained by the 
 (lovernment at my recjuest as associate counsel, iuul liled a very learned 
 and valnabhi argument. In a few other cases, not exceeding fifty in all, 
 I was assisted in the preparation of arguments by (len. iJenjamin S. 
 Roberts and by A[essrs. Edwin L. Stanton and A. S. Worthington, of 
 Washington, whose services were faithfully rendered and were very 
 valuable. With these exceptions the argunu'uts in all the British cases 
 were prepared solely by myself. 
 
 In the taking of testimony a large number of ( ounsel and agents 
 N.ere employed, under my supervision, in the localities where testimony 
 was taken as above related. Among those who have rendered faithful 
 and eflicient service in this way, I deem it not invidious to mention 
 Messrs. Kortre(!ht, Craft & Scales, of Memphis, Tenn. ; Messrs. M. A. 
 Dooley and AVilliani (J. Hale, of New Orleans, La.; Franklin H. 
 Churchill, esq., of Xew York City, lion. I). H. Chamberlain, of Colum- 
 bia, S. C; Marcus Doherty, es(j., of Montreal, P. Q., Canada; Hon. An- 
 drew Sloan, of Savannah, Ga.; Horatio 1). W^ood, es(j., of Saint Louis, 
 Mo.; Frederick C. Hale, esq., of Chicago, 111.; ]Messrs. Si)eed & Buck- 
 ner, of Louisville, Ky.; Messrs. Bra<lley & Pea body, of Nashville, Tenn. ; 
 and General II. B. Titus, of Washington, I). C. 
 
 Thomas II. Dudley, es<i., late consul of the United States, at Liver- 
 pool, and Joseph Nunn, esq.. United States vice consul-general at Lon- 
 don, also contributed largely, by their knowledge of the different cases, 
 and their diligence and assiduity in inquiry ami report upon the claims, 
 to the successful defense of the United States against many of the prize 
 cases. 
 
 In this connection, too, I should not fail to make mention of the dili- 
 gence, skill, and assiduity of Mr. Kdward Hayes, n)y stenographic clerk, 
 during the whole period of my agency*. 
 
 In conclusion, I cannot forbearthe expression of my great satisfaction 
 with the working of the commission, its performance of its arduous 
 duties, and the result of its labors. The thanks of both governments 
 will undoubtedly be fully expressed to the individual commissioners. 
 
 My personal acknowledgments are especially due to his excellency Count 
 Corti, the presiding commissioner, for the marked and unfailing courtesy, 
 kindness, and consideration which I, in common with every other perswi 
 connected with the commission, received from him throughout the whole 
 period of our official intercourse. The wide knowledge of public law, 
 the sterling good sense and judgment in its application to the fticts of 
 individual cases, the untiring labor bestowed in the investigation alike 
 of facts and principles, and the able, diligent, and conscientious appli- 
 cation of his powers, attainments, and labors to the examination and 
 decision of the cases before the commission, merit recognition and 
 acknowledgment from the governments so largely indebted to him for 
 the satisfactory disposition of the numerous vexed questions between 
 
ami:kic'AN-mi iTisii claims commission. 
 
 them submitted to the {uhitnimoiit of himsiiiraiul his colleagues, to an 
 extent to wliieh these expressions of miue do seant and feebh^jtistiee. 
 
 Mr. Justice Frazer, the eommissioner named by tiie IMesidt'iit of th«' 
 United States, by his ability, impartiality, urbanity, and diligenee, fully 
 justified the wisdom of the Pnvsident's selection .nnd the expcictations of 
 those previously ac(piainted Mith his judicial abilities and career. 
 
 1 bey, also, to express my profound appreciation of the dilijjence, 
 faithfulness, and ability exhibited by ]\Ir. Jloward, Her Majesty's 
 a}?ent, and by JNFr. Carlisle, Her Majc^sty's counsel, in the management 
 of the cases before the commission on behalf of the llritish 'government, 
 and to acknowle<l}j;e niy personal oblioations to each of those yeutlenu'n 
 for their unfailing^ courtesy and fairness. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very resi)ectfully,your obedient servant, 
 
 KOr,: S.lIALi:, 
 Af/ent of the Viiited {^tatvHy At: 
 lion. Hamilton Fish, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 I> 
 
Hiios, to illl 
 le Justict?. 
 dent of tlu' 
 ?(MU'o, fully 
 ictations of 
 roer. 
 
 5 (lilig«!iice, 
 ■ Miijesty's 
 
 lillliiyOIIKMit 
 
 ivormnent, 
 ^tMitloinei) 
 
 t servant, 
 
 'tates, cOf. 
 
 K 
 
 r : p (j> li T 
 
 To the llonordbk llnmUion Fish, Secretary of State: 
 
 The niHlorsigiu'd, a<,'(Mit of tlio IJnltod Stnttvs before the ooinmission 
 upon the chiims of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty aj^ainst the United 
 ►States, and of citizens of the United States against (Jreat Britain, 
 established by the twelfth article of the treaty between the United States 
 and (Jreat Britain of Sth ^lay, 1871, respectfully submits the following 
 report of the procee<lings and results of that commission : 
 
 Articles 12 (o 17, inclusive, of the treaty above referred to, contain the 
 provisions establishing the commission and regulating its jurisdiction, 
 powers, and methods of proceeding. Thoae articles are found in tbo 
 ai)pendix to this rei)ort, A. 
 
 The Ilonorablo James Somerville Frnzcr, of the State of Indiana, 
 i'ormerly a justice of the supreme cj irt of that State, was named as 
 commissioner by the President of the United States. 
 
 Tne Right Elouor.ible Bussell Gurney, meiiU)er of Parliament, member 
 of Her Majesty's privy council, and recorder of London, was named 
 as commissioner by Her Britannic Majesty. 
 
 Count Louis Corti, envoy extraordinary and minister idenipoten- 
 tiary to the United States of His Majesty the King of Italy, was named 
 as the third commissioner by the President of the United States and 
 Her Britannic Majesty conjointly. 
 
 liobert Sallbrd Hale, esq., of the State of New York, was named by 
 the President of the United States agent of the United States to attend 
 the commissioners, to present and support claims presented on behalf 
 of his Government, to answer claims made upon it, and to represent 
 it generally in all matters connected with the investigation and decision 
 of such claims, pursuant to the provisions of the thirteenth article of 
 the treaty. Mr. Hale acted also as counsel for the United States under 
 the same article. 
 
 Henry Howard, esq.,one of Her Britannic Majesty's secretaries of lega- 
 tion at Washington, was named by Her Majesty's government as the 
 agent of that government for the like purposes, pursuant to the same 
 article. 
 
 James Mandeville Carlisle, esq., of the city of Washington, U. S. A., 
 was employed as the counsel of Her Britannic Majesty's government 
 before the commission. 
 
 The commissioners and agents and counsel above named continued in 
 the execution of their respective duties to the close of the commis- 
 sion. 
 
8 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 Tbe cuminissioii first met and oig.inized at Wasbingtou on the 2Gtli 
 day of September, 1871, each of the commissioners making and sub- 
 scribing the " solemn declaration " provided by the twelfth article of the 
 treaty. 
 
 . Count Corti was requested, by vote of the commission, to preside 
 during its deliberations, and continued to act as presiding commissioner 
 during the entire existence of the commission. 
 
 Thomas Campbell Cox, esq., of the District of Columbia, U. S. A., 
 was duly appointed by the commission as its secretary, and continued 
 to act as such to the close of the commission. 
 
 The commission, at an early session, adopted rules for the course of 
 proceedings before it, including the manner of presentation, prosecu- 
 tion, and defense of claims, the taking of testimony, and the printing 
 and presentation of the evidence and arguments, a copy of which rules, 
 with such slight modifications as were from time to time afterward 
 adopted, is found in the appendix, B. 
 
 Within the time limited by the treaty', nineteen claims were i')re- 
 sented on the part of citizens of the United States against Great Brit- 
 ain, aggregating, exclusive of interest, a little less than $1,000,000. 
 These claims, as will be seen by the detailed report hereinafter given, 
 were all disallowed by the commission. 
 
 Within the sametiaie were presented four hundred and seventy-eight 
 claims of subjects of Her Britannic ]\Iajesty {igainst the United States, 
 aggregating, <^xclusive of interest, about $60,000,000, and, including in- 
 terest for the average time allowed by the commission, about $90,000,000. 
 Of these claims, one was dismissed by the commission on account of in- 
 decorous and improper language used in the memorial, without preju- 
 dice to the filing of a new memorial, which was subsequently filed ; 
 thirty were dismissed as not within the jurisdiction of the commission ; 
 two hundred and fifty-eight were disallowed on the merits j eight 
 were withdrawn by Iler Britannic JMajesty's agent, by leave of the com- 
 mission ; and in one hundred and eighty-one, awards were made in 
 favor of the claimants respectively against the United States, such 
 aAvards aggregating $1,029,819. 
 
 The entire amount of the awards against the United States, includ- 
 ing interest, allowed by the commission was, therefore, as will be 
 seen, a trifle over two per cent, of the entire claims i)resented to the 
 commission, on behalf of British subjects, against the United States, 
 inclmling interest. 
 
 Of the claims of citizens of the United States against (Ireat Britain, 
 twelve grew out of the Saint Albans raid, so called, and were for acts 
 of plunder alleged to have been committed by confederate soldiers in 
 the town of Saint Albans, Vt., in October, 1801 ; one was for a like 
 raid of confederate soldiers alleged to have been committed upon Lake 
 Erie in September, 1801, and for injuries to the American steamers 
 Philo Parsons and Island (ineen,andthe property of American citizens 
 on board said steamers; four were for damages by reason of the al- 
 
 s 
 
AGENTS RKPOKT. 
 
 
 
 the 20th 
 and sub- 
 tide of the 
 
 to preside 
 amissiouer 
 
 U. S. A., 
 continued 
 
 course of 
 I, prosecn- 
 B printing 
 lich rules, 
 afterward 
 
 were pre- 
 reat Brit- 
 1,000,000. 
 ter given, 
 
 suty eight 
 sd States, 
 ludingin- 
 0,000,000. 
 tint of in- 
 )ut preju- 
 tly filed; 
 imission ; 
 its; eight 
 the com- 
 made in 
 tcs, such 
 
 s, includ- 
 
 wili be 
 
 d to the 
 
 1 States, 
 
 Britain, 
 I for acts 
 Idiers in 
 or a like 
 on Lake 
 iteaniers 
 
 citizens 
 f the al- 
 
 leged det(!ntion of vessels laden with saltpetre at Calcutta, in January 
 and Fobruary, 1862, under ordinances of the governor-general of India 
 prohibiting the exportation of saltpetre; one was for alleged injuries 
 to the property of the claimant on the island of San Juan, in Washing- 
 ton Territory, U. S. A., in 1862 and 1804, by the alleged act or i)ro- 
 curement of the commander of the British forces on that island, during 
 the joint military occupation of the same by the United States and Great 
 Britain, under a convention between them for that purpose ; and one 
 was for a royalty claimed to be due to the claiiii;u>t from the liritish 
 government by reason of the adoption and use by that gov <'inment 
 of a certain invention of the claimant, a citizen of the United States, for 
 the improvement of breech-loading fire-arms. 
 
 Of the four hundred and seventy-eight Britisli claims presented, two 
 hundred and fifty nine covered claims for property of liritish subjects 
 alleged to have been taken by the military, naval, or civil authorities of 
 the United States and appropriated to the use of the Government of 
 those States; one hundred and eighty -one covered claims for property 
 of liritish subjects, alleged to have been destroyed by the military ana 
 naval forces of the United States ; seven covered claims for property of 
 British subjects alleged to have been destroyed by the rebel or confed- 
 erate forces carrying on war aguiust the United States; one hundred 
 covered claims for damages by reason of the alleged unlawful arrest 
 and imprisonment of British subjects by the authorities of the United 
 States; seventy-seven covered claims for tlamages by reason of the 
 alleged unlawful capture and condemnation or detention of British ves- 
 sels, their cargoes, &c., as prize of war by the naval lbr<;es and civil 
 authorities of the United States ; three covered claims for damages by 
 reason of the alleged unlawful warning oft" of British vessels from the 
 coasts of the States in rebellion by the United States cruisers, in the 
 absence of any lawful blockade of the coasts and i)orts from which the 
 vessels were so warned ; and thirty-four covered (;Iaims of miscellaneous 
 character. 
 
 Many of the memorials singly included claims coming under two or 
 more of the classes above nanied, a fact which explains the excess of 
 the sum of the ditferent classes above named over the entire number of 
 memorials filed. 
 
 A schedule of the Ameriinin and British claims, respectively, in their 
 order as filed and numbered, showing the naujes of the «'.laimants, the 
 nature of their respective claims, and the time and place where they 
 arose, the amounts clsiimed, and the final disposition of the same, will be 
 found in the appendix, C This schedule is accompanied by aii)habet- 
 ical indexes, giving separately the names of the citizens of the United 
 States claimants against Great Britain, and of the subjects of Her Bri. 
 tannic Majesty claimants against the United States, with relerenee to 
 the number designating the claim of each person ; and also by another 
 alphabetical index referring to the vessels in resi)ect of which damages 
 
10 
 
 AMERICAN-IJRITISn CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 : 
 
 wero claimed, and tlio nuinbors of the cases in winch such claims were 
 made. 
 
 The commission continued its sessions in the city of Washington from 
 the day of its first meeting, with adjournments from ti.ae to time, down 
 to the 10th day of May, 1873; on which day, under the authority of a 
 supplemental article to the treaty concluded between the two govern- 
 ments, and authorizing the sessions of the commission elsewhere than 
 in the city of Washington, it adjourned to meet at Newport, in the State 
 of llhode Island, on the third day of June following. On the last- 
 named day it again met at Newport, and continued its sessions with- 
 out interruptioii, except by adjournments from day to day, until the 25tli 
 day of September, 1873. On the last-named day, having finally de- 
 cided and disposed of every c.aim pending before it within the time 
 limited by the treaty, the commission made and signed in duplicate 
 its final award, signed by all the commissioners, a copy of which will be 
 found in the appendix, D. 
 
 Separate awards in duplicate were made and signed by the commis- 
 sioners, in respect of each claim finally passed upon by them, as the 
 cases were respectively disposed of. 
 
 The duplicate original final awards, as well as the duplicate original 
 individual awards iu the case of ench claimant, were delivered by the 
 commission, through its secretary, to the respective gov^ernmeuts, 
 together with duplicate journals of the entire proceedings of the com- 
 mission, kept by the secretary and certified from day to day by the pre- 
 siding commissionei*. 
 
 The entire uumb'^r of cases, American and British, decided by. the 
 commission (after deducting the eight claims withdrawn by Her Majes- 
 ty's agent) was four hundred and eighty-nine. All the commissioners 
 united in the awards in three hundred and seventy-two cases; in 
 ninety seven cases the awards were signed by Count Corti and Mr, 
 Commissioner Gurney only, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting; and 
 in twenty cases the awards were signed by Count Corti and Mr. Commis- 
 sioner Frazer only, Mr. Commissioner Gurney dissenting. 
 
 In the following pages I have attempted, to the best of my ability, to 
 report the various principal questions which arose before the commission, 
 giving a succinct statement of the allegations and proofs of the respect- 
 ive parties upon such questions, the arguments by which the respect- 
 ive claims were supported and oi)po8ed, the authorities cited by the 
 respective counsel, and, as far as practicable, the principles established 
 by the respective decisions of the commission. In but a very small 
 proportion of the whole number of cases decided were the grounds of 
 the dcisiou stated in the record or by written opinions of the several 
 commissioners. Wherever the grounds of the decision appear in the 
 record itself, I have carefully given the language of the record. 
 
 Mr. Commissioner Frazer h.is kindly furnished me with copies of a 
 few opinions pronounced by him before the commission, some of them 
 
 I 
 
AGENTS KEPOKT, 
 
 11 
 
 ilaiiiis \v«re 
 
 ngton frotn 
 tiino, down 
 lority of a 
 vo goveru- 
 vliere than 
 n the State 
 
 the last- 
 
 sions with- 
 
 til the 25th 
 
 finally de- 
 
 u the time 
 
 dni)licate 
 lich will be 
 
 be com mis- 
 em, as the 
 
 te original 
 jred by the 
 vernmeuts, 
 )f the corn- 
 by the pre- 
 
 led by. the 
 Her Majes- 
 missiouers 
 cases; in 
 ii and Mr 
 
 • 
 
 I ting; and 
 r. Com mis- 
 ability, to 
 )mmission, 
 le respect- 
 le respect. 
 :ed by the 
 stablished 
 ery small 
 grounds of 
 le several 
 !ar in the 
 J. 
 
 opies of a 
 B of them 
 
 ' 
 
 expressing the views of the commission, or a majority of it, and others 
 dissenting opinions in cases in which his views were overruled by his 
 associates upon the commission, I have deemed these opinions of either 
 class worthy of preservation, and have accordingly inserted them either 
 in the bo«ly of my report under the respective cases in which they were 
 delivered, or in the appendix. A very lew written opinions arc under- 
 stood to have been delivered by Count Corti and by Mr. Commissioner 
 (lurney, copies of which I regret that 1 have been unable to obtain for 
 publication with this report. 
 
 I proceed to consider the various principal questions which arose iiLd 
 were disposed of before the commission in their order. * 
 
 T.-.IUiaSDICTION AS TO THE PEKSOX. 
 
 Various questions as to the jurisdiction of the commission, in res[»ecb 
 both of the persons entitled to a standing as claimants under the treaty 
 and to the subject-matter of the claims, arose and were disposed of in 
 the course of the proceedings. These questions, so far as relates to the 
 jurisdiction of the commission as to the persons entitled to claim under 
 the treaty, may be summed up as follows : 
 
 1. The question early arose in several cases as to the sense in which 
 the respective expressions "citizens of the United States" and "sub- 
 jects of Her Britannic Majesty" were used in the treaty. Tl is question 
 was raised by demurrer in several of the early cases, and was argued at 
 length in the case of Anthony Barclay t'.s'. The United States, No. 5. 
 
 This claim was brought for the alleged taking and destruction of and 
 injuries to real and personal property of the claimant, situated near 
 Savannah, by the army of General Sherman, in December, 1864. The 
 memorial alleged the claimant to have been a native-born subject of 
 Her Britannic Majesty, but to have been domiciled for many years prior 
 to the year 1858 within the United States, a portion of that time as 
 Her Majesty's consul in the city of New York, and from that time for- 
 ward to the end of the war a resident of Chatham Count}', Georgia. 
 
 A demurrer was interposed to the claim on the ground, among others, 
 that "the claimant, having been at the time of the alleged acts domi- 
 ciled and engaged in trade and business within the enemy's country, 
 cannot claim the position of a subject of Her Britannic Majesty within 
 the twelfth article of the treaty." 
 
 Under this demurrer, the counsel for the United States contended 
 that, under the twelfth article of the treaty, the terms "citizens of the 
 United States" and "subjects of Her Britannic Majesty" were to be 
 taken not in their strict meaning, under municipal law, of absolute citi- 
 zenship for all purposes, or of paramount allegiance to a sovereign, but 
 in the larger sense recognized by international law, in which sense it 
 was contended that all persons were included within those respective 
 expressions who by i)ernuinent domicile were within the protection of 
 
12 
 
 AMERICAN-HKITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 the government under which they resided, and who thereby owed to the 
 country of thei" domicile that allegiance, perhaps temporary and quali- 
 fied, exjicted by such domicile. In other words, it was contended that 
 within the terms of the treaty all persons permanently domiciled within 
 the United States were to be taken as citizens of the United States, 
 and all persons permanently domiciled within the jurisdiction of Great 
 Britain were to be taken as subjects of Her Britannic Majesty. 
 
 The counsel for the United States cited in support of this doctrine 
 the following elementary writers: Twiss' Law of Nations, (war,^ 233, 
 298-0; id., 82, 83; 3 Phillimore, G03 ; 1 Kent's Com., 74 ; 2 id., 03; Law- 
 rence's Wheaton, 557 to 5()7 ; Calvo's Derecho Internaeional, 526 to 
 530; Ilalleck, 702, 705, 717 ; 3 Greenleaf's Ev., § 239; Story's Conflict of 
 Laws, § 08. 
 
 He cited, also, from the British and American reports in admiralty and 
 prize cases, the following: The Indian Chief, 3 Rub., 12, 22; The Citto, 
 id., 38 ; The Harmony, 2 id., 322 ; The Bernon, 1 id., 102 ; The Xoyade, 
 4 id., 251 ; The Danous, id., 255, w.; The President, 5 id., 227 ; The Anna 
 Katherina, id., 107 ; The Matchless, 1 Hagg. Adm., 97 ; The Schooner 
 Nancy, Stewart's Hep., (Nova Scotia, Vice- Admiralty,) 40; The Pizarro,2 
 AVheat., 227 ; The Charming Betsey, 2 Cranch, 04 ; Tha Venus, 8 id., 253 ; 
 The Francis, 1 Gall., 314 ; The Ann Green, id., 274 ; Tiie Joseph, id., 545j 
 508 ; Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall., 417 ; The Venice, id., 274 ; The 
 Peterhotf, 5 id., GO. 
 
 Also, from the coii'mon-law reports : IVIarryatt r.s. Wilson, (in Ex. Ch.,) 
 1 B. & P.; S. C, (in Kings Bench,) 8 T. K., 31 ; McConnell vs. Hector, 
 3 B. & P., 113; Tabbs vs. Bendelack, id., 207, ».; Bell vs. Keid, 1 Maule 
 & Selwyn, 720 ; Albretcht vs. Sussman, 2 Vesey «& Beames, 322. 
 
 Also, from the British Privy Council cases, on questions arising under 
 the treaty of 1814 between Great Britain and France; The Countess of 
 Conway's case, 2 Knapp P. C. Rep., 304 ; Drummond's case, 2 id., 205. 
 
 He also cited the case of the Messrs. Laurent, decided by the umpire, 
 ^Ir. Joshua Bates, under the convention of 8th January, 1853, between 
 the United States and Great Britain, given in the report of the com- 
 missioners under that convention. Senate documents, tirst and second 
 sessions. Thirty-fourth Congress, vol. 15, No. 103, p. 120. 
 
 Also, the decisions of the commissioners under the treaty of Guada- 
 pipe-Hidalgo, 2d February, 1848, between the United States and Mexico, 
 in the cases of Clow, Powell, Cook, Haggerty, Davis & Co., and Bark- 
 ley, administrator, in manuscript in the State Department. 
 
 Also, the correspondence of the British foreign office, relating to the 
 cases of Kirby, Smith, Rothschild, Ashburnham, Stewart, and others, 
 printed in the British Blue Book of 1871, Paper No. 4, on the Franco- 
 German war. 
 
 Also, from the parliamentary debates, the speeches cT Lord l\ilmer- 
 Rtotj, Hansard, third series, vol. 140, p. 41 ; of Sir Richard Bethell, id., 
 40; and of Lord John Russell, id., 50, on the Grey town case. Also, the 
 
AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 15 
 
 owed to the 
 y and quali- 
 tended that 
 ;iled within 
 
 ited States, 
 on of Great 
 
 ty. 
 
 lis doctrine 
 (war,^ 233, 
 1., G3; Law- 
 iial, 526 to 
 I Conflict of 
 
 niralty and 
 The Citto, 
 le Noyade, 
 The Anna 
 e Schooner 
 3 Pizarro,2 
 , 8 id., 253 ; 
 h, id., 545, 
 ,274; Tlie 
 
 u Ex. Ch.,) 
 
 vs. Hector, 
 
 d, 1 Maule 
 
 22. 
 
 iinj^ nnder 
 
 ountess of 
 
 id., 205. 
 le n in pi re, 
 J, between 
 
 the com- 
 rid second 
 
 af Guada- 
 d Mexico, 
 md Lark- 
 ing to the 
 id others, 
 3 Franco- 
 
 1 I'ahner- 
 ithell, id., 
 Also, the 
 
 speech of Lord Pahnerston on the question of coini)ensation tor property 
 of British nierdiaiits destroyed at Uleaborg, id., 1045, 1040. 
 
 He also cited the letter of Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State of the United 
 States, to Count Sartiges, the French minister, Ex. Doc. No. 9, Senate, 
 Thirty-flfthCongress, first session ; and Earl Clarendon'scitation of same, 
 Hansard, third series, vol. 146, p. 53. Also, Lord Talmerston's speech 
 on the case at Leghorn, Hansard, third series, vol. 113, p. 635; and the 
 note on the same case in Vattel, Guillaumin's ed., 1863, vol. II, ]>. 49; and 
 the dispatch from Prince Swartzenburg to Baron Hatter, of 14th April, 
 1850 ; and from Count Nesselro«le to Baron Brunow, of 2d May, 1850, 
 cited in Torres Caicedo Union Latino Americano, pp. 343, 348. Also, 
 the opinion of Attorney-General Stanbery on the bombardment of 
 Valparaiso, Attorney-Generars Opinions, vol. 12, p. 21; also, Professor 
 Bernard's " Xeutrality," pp. 443, 444 to 457, n. 
 
 Her Majesty's counsel, on the other hand, cited on this point the dt* 
 cision of Dr. Lieber, the umpire of the commission under the convention 
 of 4th July, 18(J8, between the United States and Mexico, in the cases 
 of Anderson and Thompson, and of the Messrs. Barron. Also, the case 
 of the Charming Betsey, 2d Cranch, 120; Phillimore, part 5, cap. 1; 
 Grotius, lib. 2, cap. 25 ; Vattel, lib. 2, cap. 6, sec. 7 ; id., lib. 2, cap. 17, 
 sees. 263, 270 ; Wheaton, 355; Kent, vol. 1, sec. 4; the Constitution of 
 the United States, Art. 3, sec. 2 ; the Judiciary act of the United States 
 of 1789, (1 Stat, at L., 76, 78, sees. 9, 11;) the act of 27th June, 1868, 
 (15 Stat, at L., 243;) the abandoned and captured property act of 
 12th ]\Larch, 1863, (12 Stat, at L., 820 ;) the correspondence between Lord 
 Lyons and Mr. Seward in relation to the case of Henry E. Green, 
 United States diplomatic corr., 1863, part 1, pp. 515, 570 ; and the annual 
 message of President Lincoln to Congress, of December, 1863, official 
 publication, pp. 2, 4. 
 
 The commission overruled the demurrer of the United States by the 
 following decision, rendered on the 16tli December, 1871, in which all 
 the commissioners concurred: 
 
 The lirst thinjr to be deciiled in this (.-aso is wliethcr tin; cuininissioncis liavejuris- 
 iliction, which (leueiuls ii])ou whcthcji- tho claimant is, within the moaning di" tho 
 treaty, a British subject. 
 
 That he is in fact a British subject there is no donbt ; but it is contended that, being 
 douiiciied in tho United States, he is not one of those intended by the trainers of the 
 treaty to be included in that term. It is undoubtedly true, as appears from various^ 
 cases cited in the argument, that the subject or citizen of one state domiciled in au- 
 otiie- acquires, in .some respects, privileges, and incurs liabilities, distinct from those 
 possessed in right of his original birth or citizenship. But he still remains the subject 
 or citizen of the state to which he originally belonged, and wo see no reason to sup- 
 pose that it was the intention of either government to put the limited meaning on the 
 words "British subject," contended for in the arguments in support of the demurrer, 
 so as to exclude from our jurisdiction a British subject who has never renounced his 
 original allegiance, or become naturalized in any other country. 
 
 The fact of the clainumt having his domicile in one of the Confederate States will, 
 of course, have a matcM'ial bearing ou the point, also raised in tlie demurrer, as to the 
 
14 
 
 AMERICAN-BKITISII CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 liability of tli(> claimant's proporty to sei/iiio or (M.stnictioii by the Fedoial Arni. . It is 
 difficult to lay down a jjcneial iiilt! a])pli(able in all cases to the rij^hts of an iu> ading 
 army, nor, in this particular case, is tliat necessary. 
 
 The statements contained in tiio memorial are, for tlie purposes of this argument, to 
 bo assumed to bo true. One of the statements in tlie memorial is, that part of the 
 claimant's property was taken possession of by the Federal Aimy without any military 
 uecossitj, convenience, provocation, or inducomont, and plundtired, and that part was 
 wantonly destroyed. 
 
 Supposing this to bo true, we are not prepared to say tluit some liability might not 
 be established against the United States (jiovernmeut. 
 
 l"iu) demurrer is, therefore, disallowed ; but the United States GoverumiMit will be 
 at liberty, if they think lit, to take issue upon the facts alleged in the iniiuiorial. 
 
 In tlie ca.se of Jiinie.s Crutcbett vs. The United States, No. 4, a claim 
 lor property taken and appropriated bj- the United State.s in the Dis- 
 tinct of Cohiinbia, the memorial showed the claimant at the time of the 
 alleged injnries, and for many years in-evious, domiciled at Washington. 
 
 A demnrrer was interposed specifying, among other gronnds, that the 
 claimant, being so domiciled within the United States, was not entitled 
 to the standing of a British subject within the treaty. 
 
 The case was submitted on this point upon the authorities cited in 
 Barclay's case, as above noted, and the demurrer was overruled. 
 
 The decisions of the commission in these and other similar cases estab- 
 lished the doctrine that, so far as relates to the (piestion of jurisdiction, 
 the national character of the party is to be determined by his paramount 
 allegiance, where that is not double, irrespective of the fact of domicile. 
 
 In the case of George Adlam vs. The United States, No. 40, it appeared 
 from the memorial, in addition to the fact of domicile within the insur- 
 rectionary States, that the claimant had taken the preliminary steps 
 toward naturalization under the statutes of the United States, by filing 
 his declaration on oath of his intention to become a citizen of the United 
 States, and to renounce all allegiance to Her Britannic Majesty, the 
 vsovereign of his nativity. 
 
 The counsel for the United States on demurrer claimed that siujh oath, 
 added to the fact of domicile, established the national character of the 
 claimant as a citizen of the United States within international law, and 
 barred him from any standing as a British subject under the treaty. 
 
 The demurrer was overruled. 
 
 In the case of Joseph Gribble vs. The United States, N(t. 116, the proofs 
 on the part of the defense showed that the claimant, who had filed 
 his declaration of intention, under the naturalization act, before the pre- 
 sentation of his memorial, had subsequently, and pending his claim be- 
 fore the commission, completed his naturalization, and was at the time 
 of the submission of his cause a citizen of the United States. His claim 
 was disallowed on the merits ; but the undersigned is advised that the 
 commission was unanimous in the opinion that his naturalization had 
 deprived him of a standing before the commission as a British subject. 
 
il Anil. . It is 
 ail iin uding 
 
 ar^uinent, to 
 it part of the 
 t any military 
 that part was 
 
 ty iiiiglit not 
 
 iiniMit will he 
 cinorial. 
 
 >. 4, a chiiin 
 in the Dis- 
 tiino of the 
 'ashiu<^ton. 
 d.s, that the 
 not entitled 
 
 ies cited in 
 
 uled. 
 
 oases estab- 
 urisdiction, 
 paramount 
 
 )t' «loniicile. 
 
 , it api)eared 
 II tlie insui- 
 linary steps 
 es, b^' filing- 
 • the United 
 klajesty, the 
 
 t such oath, 
 acter of the 
 lal hiw, and 
 3 treaty. 
 
 i, tlie proofs 
 had filed 
 ore the pre- 
 is claim be- 
 at the time 
 His claiin 
 ed that the 
 ization bad 
 jh subject. 
 
 AOICNT S KKl'ORT, 
 
 15 
 
 III the case of John W. Sharpe vh. The United Htales, Xo. 92, the claim- 
 ant's i)roofs showed that he had exercised rights of citizenship of the 
 United States, by voting, prior to the i)resentation of his memorial. 
 
 The counsel for the United States contended, first, that such acts con- 
 stituted an estoppel against the claim of the claimant to a standing as 
 a British subject under the treaty ; and, second, that if strictly and tech- 
 nically there was no estoppel, siujh acts were to be regarded as very 
 strong evidence of the iact of naturalization, atid sutHcient to overcome 
 the claimant's own denial on oath of such naturalization. 
 
 An award was made in favor of the claimant, Mr. Commissioner F. - 
 zer dissenting ; and the objection on the part of the United States was 
 thus overruled. 
 
 In the case of liobert Eakin vs. The United States, No. 118, the proofs 
 showed that the claitnant had, in 1857, in the State of i\lississii»pi, ex- 
 ercised acts of citizenship of the United States by holding an ottice, 
 which, under the laws of Mississii)pi, could only lawfully be held by a 
 citizen of the United States ; and that he had, in 1802, the State of Missis- 
 slpj)i being then in rebellion against the United States, hehl a like oilier, 
 which, by the then laws of Mississippi, could onl^' be held by a citizen 
 of the Confederates States. 
 
 The counsel for the United States contended that the claimant was, 
 by each of these acts, debarred from a standing as a British subject. 
 
 The claim was disallowed without a separate aiul distinct decision of 
 this question ; but the undersigned is advised that a majority, at least, 
 of the commission were of opinion that such holding of oHice under the 
 rebel government was of itself a violation of neutrality, and debarred 
 the claimant from a standing before the commission. 
 
 In the case of the executors of Robert S. C. A. Alexander vs. The United 
 States, No. 45, the memorial showed the claimants' testator to have been 
 born in the United States in 1810, but alleged him to have been the son 
 of liobert Alexander, a native of Scotland, and a natural-born subject of 
 the British Crown. It also alleged that the testator had always held 
 and claimed himself to be a liege subject of the British Crown, and 
 that he had always been so held and regarded by all others. That in 
 his early youth he had returned to S(!otland, and there for many years 
 held ofiice in the commission of the peace and other posts of trust under 
 the British Crown. That during the war his residence was partly in 
 Scotland and partly in Kentucky, he having died in Kentucky in De- 
 cember, 18G7. The claim was for the occupation of and injuries to lands 
 and real estate of the testator in Kentrcky by United States troops 
 during the war. 
 
 On demurrer ifc was contended, on the part of the United States, that 
 the claimants had no standing before the commission in the right of 
 their testator as a British subject ; that, although by the law of Great 
 Britain he was a British subject, he was also by the laws of the United 
 
16 
 
 AMKRICAN-JJUITISJI CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 ►States Ji citi/eii of those States; and that, in such a case of double or 
 conrtictiiif? alU'i^iaiice, the claimant was not to be regarded as a subject 
 of (heat Britain within the meaning of the treaty'. 
 
 The counsel for the United States cited the Revised Statutes of Ken- 
 tucky, vol. 1, p. -3S, c. 15, art. 1, sec. 1, as establishing the fact of citi- 
 zenship under the law of Kentucky ; and also Drummond's case, 2 
 Kuapp's P. C. Rep., 205. 
 
 The commission held the claimants not entitled to a standing, and 
 dismissed the case, Mr. Commissioner Gurney dissenting. 
 
 Mr. Commissioner Frazer read a written opinion, as follows : 
 
 Tlio testator was by British law a British siibjcet, but ho was also by tlio law of the 
 United States an American citizen, by reason of his birth in Kentucky : and lie wu** 
 not capable of divesting himself of his American mitionality by mere volition and resi- 
 dence from time to time in Scotland and liolding oflice there. 
 
 Being, then, n subject of both governments, was In- a British subject within the mean- 
 ing of the treaty ? The practice of nations in such cases is believed to be by tluMi" 
 sovereign to leave the person who h.as embarrassed himself by assuming a double 
 allegiance to the protection which he may (ind provided for him by the municipal laws 
 of that other sovereign to whom he thus also owes allegiance. To treat his grie\ ances 
 against that other sovereign as subjects of international concern, would be to claim a 
 jurisdiction paramount to that of the other nation of which he is also a subject. Cora- 
 plications would inevitably result, for no government wouhl recognize the right of 
 another to interfere thus in behalf of one whom it regarded as a subject of its own. It 
 has certaiidy not bt^en the practice of the British government to interfere in such 
 cases ; and it is not easy to believe that either government meant to provide for them 
 by this treaty. In Drummond's case the terms of the treaty were quite as compre- 
 hensive as those of this treaty ; and yet it was there held that the claimant was not 
 within the treaty, not being within its intention. This was held even :ifter it was 
 ascertained that he was not a French sidtject, he having merely evinced hi-* intention 
 to regard himself as a French subjtict. 
 
 I am advised that in this opinion the [(residing commissioner con- 
 curred. 
 
 In the case of Joseph Fry ^Mogridge r.s. The United States, Xo. 345, the 
 .same principle was applied by a majority of the commission under a 
 like state of circumstances, except that the memorial in effect alleged 
 the claimant to have been born in Pennsylvania of native-born British 
 subjects, never domiciled within the United States, but on a visit there 
 at the time of his birth, and who returned to England within a few 
 weeks thereafter, where the claimant remained during his minority. 
 He was domiciled in the United States at the tinu^ of the alleged inju- 
 ries — the taking and destruction of his property. 
 
 His claim was disinissed in like manner. 
 
 In the case of Joseph W. Scott r,v. The United States^ No, 22{>, for (lam- 
 ages for wrongful imprisonment, and for api)ropriatiou and destruction 
 ot property, the proofs showed that the claimant was born in the British 
 province of New Brunswick in 1813. His father, Daniel Scott, was born 
 in the then province of Maine, in March, 1708, and continued to reside 
 in Maine after the recognition of tlie independence of the colonics by 
 
oiible 01' 
 I subject 
 
 ; of Ken- 
 it of eiti- 
 i case, 2 
 
 ling, and 
 
 law of the 
 ti(\ he wii** 
 II und resi- 
 
 tho ineaii- 
 by their 
 a; a double 
 icipul hiw» 
 gii(!\ances 
 
 to cliiiiu a 
 ect. (Joru- 
 le liKht of 
 ts own. It 
 ire in such 
 lo for them 
 IS comiiie- 
 
 t was not 
 
 fter it was 
 
 intention 
 
 iner con- 
 
 345, tbe 
 under a 
 alleged 
 British 
 sit there 
 in a few 
 linority. 
 »ed inji^- 
 
 or (liun- 
 
 truction 
 
 British 
 
 rasboru 
 
 reside 
 
 iiies bv 
 
 AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 17 
 
 Great Britain, and after he became of age, which was in Marob, 1780. 
 Tlie time of Daniel Scott's removal to New Brunswick was left somewbat 
 uncertain, ranging from December, 17.S0, to 1794. 
 
 On the part of tbe United States it was claimed that Daniel Scott, 
 the father, liaving been a citizen of tbe United States, tbe claimant, 
 Josepb W. Scott, was by tbe naturalization laws of 18iHi (*J Stat, at 
 L., lij.j, § i) also a citizen of tbe United States, and was (b'barred from 
 a standing before the commission witbln the i)rlncii)ie held by the com- 
 mission in tbe case of Alexander. 
 
 At tbe time of the alleged injuries, and for many years previous, ho 
 was domiciled in tbe State of Florida, one of tbe insurrectionary States. 
 Tbe counsel for tbe United States cited tbe first article of tbe treaty 
 of peace between tbe United States and Great Britain, concluded Sep- 
 tember 3, 1783, (8 Stat, at L., 80, 81,) atid tbe cases of Inglis r.s'. Tbe 
 Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, 1)9; Slianks r.s, Dupout, id., 244; Doe 
 vs. Acklan, 2 B. & C, 779; and Marryatt vs. Wilson, 1 B. & P., 430. 
 
 On tbe part of tbe claimant it was contended that Daniel Scott, being^ 
 a minor at tbe time of the conclusion of tbe treaty of i)eace between 
 Great Britain and tbe United States, was entitled, witbln a reasonable 
 time after attaining bis majority, to elect to wbich government be would 
 adhere, and that be did make such election witbln such reasonable time by 
 bis removal to New Brunswick. 
 
 Claimant's counsel cited tbe cases of Jephsou vs. Eiera, 3 Knapp's P. 
 C. R., and (.'ount Wall's case, id. 
 
 An award was made in favor of tbe claimant, Mr. Commissioner 
 Frazer dissenting. No written opinions were read. I am advised that 
 tbe decision [)roceeded upon tbe ground tbat Daniel Scott's removal to 
 New Brunswick constituted an election, within a reasonable time, to 
 adhere to bis British allegiance. 
 
 In the cases of Elizabeth L. 11. Bowie vs. Tbe United States, No. 320,, 
 Martha M. Calderwood vs. same, No. 3(jl), Martha M. Tooraen j;.s'. same, No. 
 184, anil otliers, it was held tbat tbe national character of a married wo- 
 man is governed by tbat of her husband in all cases, irresi)ective of domi- 
 cile ; and tbat on tbe death of the husband the national character of the 
 widow acquired by marriage remains nncbanged. From tbis condusiou 
 Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissented, in tbe case of a widow of American 
 origin who had always remained domiciled witbln tbe United States, 
 holding tbat in such case, upon the death of her British husband, her 
 original national character reverted. 
 
 In the case of Mrs. Bowie, No. 320, the claimant was by birth a Brit- 
 ish subject, bnt was at the time of tbe alleged injuries tbe widow of a 
 citizetfof tbe United States, and domiciled in the insurrectionary State 
 of Virginia, and before the filing of her memorial had again intermarried 
 with a citizen of the United States, wbo was still living and tbere domi- 
 ciled. Her claim was disallowed, all tbe commissioners agreeing. 
 2 H 
 
18 
 
 AMKRICAN-HRITISII CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 In tliQ oaso of ^Fis. Ciildorwood, No. 300, (claimant was a iiativo-born 
 citi/-»'ii of the United States, had iiitoniiarricd with a r»ritish siibjcctt 
 who was siii(!o dectcascd, and had always Ikhmi «h)ini(;iled in the State of 
 Louisiana. Tiie eonmiission, on deuuiner, heUl hera British siilijeet, Mr. 
 Commissioner Fra/er dissenting'. 
 
 In the ease of Mrs. Tooraon, \o. 184, ehiimant was by birth a IJritish 
 .subjet;t, lier linsband at tlie time of marriaj;e beiny a snbjeiit of Sweden, 
 but natnrali/A'd as a eiti/.en of the United States subsequent to the mar- 
 riage. Claimantand her husband were both domieiled from tlie time of 
 marria}j;e within the United States. Her chiim was unanimously dis- 
 missed. 
 
 In the case of Jane L. Brand, No. ISO, which was a claim for alh'<?etl 
 wronfitid imprisonment and approi)riation of the claimant's i)roperty at 
 New Orleans, it appeared that claimant, a native of Ireland, had been 
 fov several years domiciled in New Orleans. She there married in 1838 
 a citizen of the United States, who died in 18 10, and she had since re- 
 mained his widow and continued domiciled in New Orleans. Iler 
 memoiial alleged that, though nuirried to an American citizen, "she 
 never in any manner adopted his nationality;'' that after his death 
 she uniformly claimed the character of ii British subject; and that in 
 August, 18013, before the commission of the acts complained of, or a part 
 of them, she had made i)roof of her character as a Bi'itish subject be- 
 fore the British consul at New Orleans, and been duly registered as such. 
 
 On the part of the claimant it was contended that at the time of the 
 claimant's marriage and of tlie death of her husband, and up to the pas- 
 sage of the act of the United States Congress of 10th February, 1855, 
 (10 Stat, at L., 001,) the claimant was not by the laws of the United 
 States a citizen of those States, the act of 1855 being the first to give 
 such status to an alien-born woman by her marriage to a citizen of the 
 United States. That up to the conclusion of the naturalization conven- 
 tion of 13th May, 1870, between the United States and Great Britain, 
 (10 Stat, at L., 775,) and the supplemental convention of 23d Februai'y, 
 1871, between the same nations, (17 id., 841,) no provision existed for 
 the manner in which a British subject who had married a citizen of the 
 United States should, upon becoming a widow, reclaim her original na- 
 tionality. That the universal custom among nations, founded ui)on inter- 
 national comity, if not upon international law, allowed such widow to 
 choose whether she would retaiu the nationality of her deceased bus- 
 band 6v return to that of her birth. That Mrs. Brand, by always claim- 
 ing, after her husband's death, the condition of a British subject, and 
 by registering herself .as such in the consulate at New Orleans in 1802, 
 had done all that was necessary to enable her to re-assume her original 
 national character; and that it was not necessary for her to avail her- 
 self of the provisions of the conventious of 1870 and 1871 in order to 
 
A(ii:NT.S IIKPOUT. 
 
 10 
 
 nisdiiiin and voiJiidiatc any allcyed condition of Amoiican citizenship 
 uc<inir('d by licr inairiaj^c. 
 
 Ilcr Majesty's connscl cited the (;ase of ivelly rs. Owen, (7 Wall., l!M!.i 
 On tile i>art of the Ignited States it was contentled tliat, nn(h'r tlie 
 ininciples rec.o;^ni/ed by tlie coiirndssion in the cases of Mrs. CahU'i'Wood, 
 >'(>. ;5(iO, and others, it was settled that the natioind character of a mar- 
 ried woman was in all cases «leternuned by that of her hnsband ; and 
 that sneh national character, once ac((nired by marriaj;!', continncd on 
 the death of the linsband. That this doctrine had always prevailcil in 
 ('treat JJritain, as well as elsewhere, where the «loinicile of the wile and 
 Avidow had continncd to bo that of the husband's nationality ; and that 
 by no treaty stipulation or law, municipal or intennitional, was the 
 widow ever allowed to reclaim her original nationality whde still domi- 
 ciled within the natioinility ofherhusband, until the conventionsof 1S70 
 and 1871 ; and that by those conventions she could only reclaim her 
 orij^inal nationality in the form provided by the convention of 1871, 
 Avhich in the case of Mrs. IJrand had never been done. That she was, 
 therefore, both at the time of the commission of the allej^ed wronj-s and 
 at the time of the presentation of her memorial, a citizen of the United 
 States. 
 
 The commission unanimously sustained the doctrine maintaine<l on 
 behalf of the United States, and dismissed the claim for want of juris- 
 diction. 
 
 2. In the cases of James B. Halley, administrator, &c., vs. The United 
 States, No. 2do, Ann Crrayson, adnninstratrix, &c., vs. .same, No. -J!>1, 
 and others, the question was raised as to the jurisdiction of the com- 
 mission in the case of the personal representatives of British subjects 
 Mho had died holding claims within the treaty against the United States, 
 where such per.soual representatives were citizens of the United States. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was claimed that under the treaty 
 the claims again.st the United States of which ■ . commission had 
 jurisdiction must be not only those arising out of acts committed 
 against the person or property of Briti.sb subjects, but also must be 
 prosecuted before the commission on behalf of British subjects; and 
 that where the claim, though originally one of a British subject, had 
 been transferred by act of the original claimant or by operation of lavv 
 to citizens of the United States, such citizens could have no standing 
 before the commission. 
 
 In the case of Mrs. Grayson, No. 291, the claim was prosecuted by 
 her as administratrix of John J. Cowley, a deceased British subject. 
 The claimant was the widow of Cowley, but bad, before presenting lier 
 claim, intermarried with Grayson, a citizen of the United States. The 
 distributees of Cowley's estate were the widow and certain brothers 
 and sisters, all British subjects and domiciled within the British domin- 
 iou.s. An award was made in favor of the claimant for the one-half of 
 
20 
 
 AMERICAN-imiTISII CLAIMS COMNfTSSION. 
 
 tlio cliiiin to whicli tlio «llstril)ntoos wpfp ontitlod, rojcctinpf the one-half 
 belonging to tli(! widow as tlio claim of an Ainoiiciim <*ilizoii. 
 
 In tlio ortHO of Iliilloy and otlior casos 8iil)initto<l with it tho following 
 dooision was entorod : 
 
 Tli« mrtj(»rity of the coiimiisHionorsaro of opinion tlmt, wli«ro tlio claim \h l>y an ail- 
 miiiishator ill icspoct of inJlIl•il^s to j)it>i)i)ity of jui iiit('j<tiito who win (ixchi.sivoly a 
 liritisli Hiiliji'ct, iiiid tlir Ix^iii'jiciiu'ifs aro Hritisli siihji'ut.s as wt'l! as Alll(■^i(^■lll citi/ciis, 
 till' cliiiiii limy \w ]»ros»M:iit<Ml for tlioir hoiiotit. Tlio «'OMiiMisMioii('rH arn all of opinion 
 that tliu particular nationality of tliu lulniiniHtrator docs not atiuct tUo qiiostion. 
 
 Froin tho first portion of this decision Mr. Coinuiissiouer Frazer dis- 
 sented, as follows : 
 
 Hy tho vory words of tho troaty (Article 12) the claim must bo, first, for an act done 
 to the " iK'rH«m or i)ro|tcrty of" a Jiritish Huhjoct ; second, it ninst ho iiiado "on tho part 
 of" a Ihiti.sh snhjt'ct. Distinctly, then, those two things ninst concur to {jivons jurisdic- 
 tion. This is too plain to admit of controversy. Tlie treaty is tlio laiij;na>;e of both gov- 
 crniiients, and must be construed to ell'eetuato not the intent of one, only, but of both. 
 If any of its terms have one sense in Great liritain and another in t'.ie United States by 
 reason of their respective laws, neithi'r of these senses can fairly bo taken ; another, 
 thonsli limited, sense must be 8onp;ht, conunon to both countries. There is such a re- 
 stricted sense of the lan}?ua>;e employed here. In Alexander's case I expressed myself 
 on this branch of the present iiueslion. One born in the United States of Jhitish 
 parents residing? hero would be protectted by the United States as fully as any Aiiieii- 
 can aj^ainst wron<j;s from other countries, CJreat rbitaiii probably not excejited. And 
 Great Britain wonhl not, as a;;ainst tin' United Stati's, intervene in his beliall", tliono;li 
 she wouhl claim him as her snl>je(!t, and hold him to accountability as sucli if found 
 bearing arms a<;ainst her. And if born here of Uritish parents duiiii};' a temjioraiy 
 sojourn, but afterwards doniieiltfd in Eiif^landand never residing Uviv, the United States 
 would practically treat him as not an Americau, refusing to intervene in his behalf 
 against any other government, though she, too, would hold him to accountability as 
 a citizen if found in arms against her. And so of persons born in Great Britain of Amer- 
 ican parents. Tho treaty is tho product of diplomacy, providing this international 
 tribunal for tho amicable setth^ment of claims concerning which each power could 
 lawfully claim redress as it saw lit, not of claims for which it would have no right to 
 claim redress. 
 
 Alexander's case was a little ditferont. He had estates and a domicile in both coun- 
 tries ; was born in the Unitetl States of British parents domiciled here, but claiming 
 only British nationality. This would be an interpretation of the treaty wliich Avould 
 maintain our jurisdiction in all cases in which the complaining government would, by 
 international law, have l)een at I'.berty to demand redress. It would settle all such 
 cases, and thus etl'ectnato tho purpose of the treaty which was to terminate our diplo- 
 matic diii'erences. Tho principles above stated, it seems to me, apply quite as fully 
 w^here the person beneficially interested in tho claim made before us is of both nation- 
 alities as where the person originally injured, being also of both nationalities, is still 
 living and makes claim. To entertain the claim in either case is to assume that each 
 government has by the treaty recognized its responsibility to the other for injuries 
 done to those who are by its laws its own citizens or subjects^ This construction, it 
 geenis to me, is utterly inadmissible. I cannot possibly bring myself to believe that 
 either government intended any such thing. 
 
agent's rkpokt. 
 
 II.-jrUI.SlMCTION A8 TO Sl'IUKt'T-MATTKU. 
 
 21 
 
 Numoroiis (|U(^stiolls in this ivffard anistMliiriiij; the proffioss of tlie 
 comiiiissioii. but tlu-y are so iiitiiiialH.v coinn'cted witli the iiuMils of tiie 
 cas«'s tlu'insclve.s tliat tlioy will he treated of under the separate (-ases 
 as they may be hereafter considered. 
 
 III.-ALLOWANCE OF INTI.UEST. 
 
 The commission ordinarily allowed interest at the rate of six i>or (tent, 
 per annum from the date of the injury to the anticipated date of the 
 final I. ward. 
 
 IV.-CLAIMS OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST GREAT 
 
 BRITAIN. 
 
 Saint Albans raid. 
 
 The First National Bank of Saint Albans vs. Great Britain, No. 1. 
 
 Collins U. Huntington vs. same, No. 2. 
 
 AVilliam and Erasmus D. Fuller vs. same, No. 3, 
 
 Bradley Barlow, receiver of the Saint Albans Bank vs. same. No. L 
 
 [Mariette Field, avlministratrix, &c., vs. >■■ mo, No. o. 
 
 S th W. Langdon vs. same, No. (>. 
 
 •loseph S. AVeeks vs. same, No. 7. 
 
 ! reck «S: Wetherbee r«. same. No. 8. 
 
 Aldis O. Brainerd vs. same. No. 9. 
 
 Charles F. Everest vs. same, No. 10. 
 
 Oscar A. Burton, receiver of the Franklin County Bank vs. same, No. 13, 
 
 Lucieu B. Clough, administrator, &c., vs. same, No. 1-1. 
 
 These claims all arose out of the same transaction, .and were con- 
 sidered and decided together. All, except No. 14, were claims for 
 property taken and appropriated or destroyed at Saint Albans, Vt., by 
 an incursion of rebels, known as the Saint Albans raid, in October, 
 18G4. No. 14r was a claim brought by the administrator of Elinas J. 
 Morrison, deceased, to recover damages for the wrongful killing of said 
 deceased by the rebels engaged in the same raid. 
 
 The entire amount claimed in all the cases was $313,490, besides in- 
 terest. 
 
 The allegations in all the memorials were substantially the same, and 
 as follows : 
 
 That, shortly before the 19th of October, 1804, a large number of 
 persons, then domiciled or commoraut within Her Britannic Majesty's 
 j)rovince of Canada, ombined together within those provinces for the 
 purpose of committi' * acts of depredation, rapine, and war from said 
 provinces as a base^of operations, and as a shelter for immediate re- 
 treat, against the persons and jiroperty of citizens of the United States 
 
'li 
 
 22 
 
 AMERICAX-I3RITISII CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 "li 
 
 II n 
 
 rosidiiiq' within those Statos. That some twenty or more of those per- 
 sons, shortly before that <h'.y, pursuant to the combinations so nuide, 
 ]tro(;(!e(le(l from Tier i'\Iaj'esty'.s province of Canada East into tlie terri- 
 tory of tlio United States, and assembled at the viHage of Saint Albans, 
 in the State of Vermont, distant about twelve miles from the border of 
 sai<l province. That, beinj? so assembled, they took forcible and armed 
 possession of a ])art of said village ; there seized and imprisoned several 
 citizens of the United States; tired shots at sundry citizens; by such 
 shootnig killed the decedent named in No. 14; set tire to several buildings 
 in the village; entered three of the banks therein, seizing and imprison- 
 ing the oniceraof such banks, and seized and ai)propriatedthe securities 
 and moneys from the safes of said banks, together with hor.ses and other 
 ])roperty named in the several memorials. That all these acts were com- 
 mitted underarms and with military uniform, equipage, and organization 
 to a greater or less extent. That after the perpetration of these acts 
 the jierpetrators retreated in a body toward the province of Canada, and 
 entered that i)rovince, carrying with then the i)lundered property, and 
 closely pursued b^* the citizcnsof Saint Albans and vicinity, who organ- 
 ized for that purpose, and would doubtless have captured the fugitive 
 marauders but for the asylum afforded them by Iler Majesty's province. 
 Tliat shortly after the arrival of the retreating marauders within 
 the province of Canada, several of them were arrested by local 
 magistrates in that province, and a part of the plunder carried off by 
 them was seized by such magistrates and retained ii. their custody. 
 That immediately thereafter requisition was made by the Government of 
 the United States upon Her Britannic Majesty's government for the 
 surrender of said persons on the charges respectively of murder, assault 
 with intent tocommitmurder, and robbery, committed within the jurisdic- 
 tion of the United States, such requisition being based on and conform- 
 able to the terms of Article 10 of the treaty of 9th August, 1S42, be- 
 tween the United States and Great Britain. That the requisition was 
 Kupi)()rted by full evidence on tho part of the United States of the 
 commission by the persons so charged of the acts of violence above 
 named. That before the liearing before such local magistrates of 
 the charges preferred against such arrested persons, Her Majesty's 
 government for said province caused the jurisdiction of such local 
 nnigistrates and the proceedings before them to be superseded by one 
 Charles J. Coursol, a judicial olhcer of the province, who took jurisdic- 
 tion of the matters charged, issued warrants for the arrest of the persons 
 so charged, and caused such persons to be removed from the jail at 
 St. John's, Canada, where they were confined under i)roces8 issued by 
 the local magistrates, to the city of Montreal ; and also caused the prop- 
 erty seized to be transferred from the custody of the local magistrates 
 to the custody of Her Majesty's ofllicers in Montreal. That a partial 
 hearing was had before Judge Coursol, on which liearing full evidence 
 was made of the commission of such acts of violence by the persons so 
 
agent's report. 
 
 2i3 
 
 ' tliose por- 
 s so inado, 
 1 the ti^rii- 
 iiit Albans, 
 15 border of 
 und armed 
 lied several 
 s; b}' such 
 1 buildings 
 1 iniprisou- 
 ?. securities 
 s and other 
 
 were com- 
 ^ganization 
 these acts 
 ana<la, and 
 )perty, and 
 rtho organ- 
 he fugitive 
 5 province, 
 ers Avithin 
 
 bj' local 
 :'ie(l off by 
 r custody. 
 
 rnnient of 
 'ut for the 
 er, assault 
 lejurisdic- 
 l conform- 
 , 1.S42, be- 
 iition was 
 
 es of the 
 ice above 
 stratea of 
 
 Majesty's 
 uch local 
 ed by one 
 : jurisdic- 
 le persons 
 the jail at 
 issued by 
 
 tlie prop- 
 igistrates 
 
 a partial 
 
 evidence 
 
 ersons so 
 
 i 
 
 charged ; and that the hearing was, on the application of the persons 
 charged, unreusoir.ibly, and against the protest of the counsel for the 
 United States, posti oned IVoni time to time to the l.'Uh December, 18(51, 
 ^or the i)urp()se of enabling the resjiondents to make jiroof of tlieir being 
 commissioned and authorized by the Confederate States of America, so 
 called, to commit the acts of violence named. Tliat on the l.'Jth De- 
 cember Judge Coursol, without hearing any further proofs or argu- 
 nients, in a hasty, unjudicial, and indecent manner discharged from cus- 
 tody the persons against whom such hearing had chietiy proceeded, and 
 all other persons arrested and held ou the same charge, and immedi- 
 ately and with indecent haste ordered the money and property of the 
 claimants found upon the persons so charged to be delivered uj) to them, 
 and permitted them to make their escape therewith, siicli money and prop- 
 ]>erty amounting to $80,000 and ui)\vards, and having been fully proved 
 and identified as the money and property of the claimants, and as having 
 been plundered and carried off by the persons so charged and arrested and 
 discharged. That subsequently further warrants were issued by Judge 
 Smith, one of fler Majesty'sjustices of the superior court for the said pro- 
 vince, on which warrants, after much delaj' and hindrance, arising from 
 the friendliness of the constabulary of the province to the confederate 
 raiders and their pretended government, and the unfriendliness of the 
 same to the United States Government and its people, in consequence 
 whereof most of the otfenders were allowed to escajie, and all the money 
 and property was allowed to be se i-eted or removed, live of the persons 
 so charged were again arrested and brought before Justice Smith u])on 
 an api)lication of the United States for their extradition. That alter 
 much delay Justice Smith decided that the persons were not the sub- 
 ject of extradition under the treaty, but were belligerents against the 
 United States in committing the acts complained of, and in making 
 their retreat to Canada and enjoying its asylum, and discharged the 
 prisoners. That by these actts of the judicial oflicers of Canada, Her 
 ^Majesty's government, in ell'ect, refused to surrender the persons who 
 committed these acts of violence within the United States, and refused 
 to restore to the United States and to its citizens the property and 
 money so takeii and carried by the plunderers into the province/of 
 Canada- That in the commission of these acts, a»s well as in their or- 
 ganization and preparation for the same, these raiders claimed to act 
 under the authority and in aid of the so-called Confederate States of 
 America— the enemi(!s of the United States— and that their confedera- 
 tion and organization for the purpose of committing these acts were 
 well known to many of the government ollicials, local oOicers, and citi- 
 zens of the province of Canada before the occurrence of the acts named 
 at Saint Albans. That in consequence of the culpable negligence or 
 connivance of the authorities of the province, no steps were taken to 
 ])revent the expedition, or to give any information to the United States 
 Government, or any of its oflicers, so as to enable them to protect them- 
 
24 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 
 'i 
 
 selves against such acta. Tliat both before and after the acts in ques- 
 tion warui sympathy and hospitality were extended to the ofl'enders by 
 a large number of the leading and influential citizens of the province 
 of Canada, and the acts themselves were vindicated and ai)proved by 
 some of the olHcial government newspaper organs in tlie province; and 
 that snch sentiments prevailed there that magistrates and peace oflicers 
 in many instances refused search-warrants and the necessary assistance 
 to enforce the same; in consequence of which many of the offenders 
 were allowed to escape without arrest and carry with them the plun- 
 dered property. The memorials charged Her Majesty's government and 
 otlicial authorities in Canada to have been culpably negligent in per- 
 mitting the raid in question from their borders, and in permitting the 
 returning band, under fresh pursuit, to escape into Canada and obtain 
 asylum therein, and in refusing to surrender them, with their booty, to 
 the United States, and in neglecting and refusing, upon full notice and 
 demand, to restore to the United States or to the claimants the money 
 and proi)erty of the claimants so carried off by the raiders. 
 
 Proofs taken on the part of the claimants fully established the facts 
 of the depredations committed at Saint Albans, as alleged in the several 
 memorials, and that those depiedations were comnntted by a body of 
 men who came separately or in small detachments from Canada in the 
 guise of ordinary travellers and without any open or apparent organiza- 
 tion or military array. Tliat their first apparent action in an organized 
 body or in unison commenced at Saint Albans, on the 19th October, ISGJ:, 
 and continued less than an hour. That innnediately after the committing 
 of the depredations charged in the complaint they retreated in a body 
 toward Canada; were closely pursued by tb citizens of Saint Albans 
 and vicinity, who rallied for that purpose; and that the pursuit was 
 only abandoned upon the retreating party entering the i)rovince of 
 Canada. The party acted under the command of one Bennett H. Young, 
 a lieutenant in the army of the Confederate States, and all its members 
 were claimed to have been connected with the regular military service 
 of the confederates. 
 
 The arrest, examination, detention, discharge, re-arrest, and final dis" 
 charge of some of tho party, substantially as alleged in the memorial' 
 ■were also established by proofs on the part of the claimants. Testiuiony 
 was taken on both sidea bearing upon the question of the knowledge by 
 the authorities of Canada of the intentions of the confederates to organ- 
 ize a raid from Canada upon Saint Albans or other fiontier towns of the 
 United States, and as to the conduct of those authorities in regard to 
 taking anj' measures to prevent or suppress such intended raid. 
 
 Among the witnesses examined on the part of the claimants to show 
 such knowledge by the Canadian authorities, and their faihire to take 
 proi)er steps to prevent or suppress the raid, were Cuillaume Lamothe 
 chief of police of the city of Montreal at the time of the raid, and Jacob 
 Eynders, a detective in the employ of the United States at Montreal at 
 
AGENT S REPORT. 
 
 25 
 
 s in qnos- 
 Miders by 
 province 
 roved by 
 nee ; aud 
 ^e officers 
 ssistance 
 offenders 
 ulie pluii- 
 uent and 
 t in per- 
 tting the 
 id obtain 
 booty, to 
 )tice and 
 le money 
 
 the fticts 
 
 e several 
 
 I body of 
 
 la in the 
 
 ir^aniza- 
 
 rg^anizc'd 
 
 r, 18G4, 
 
 niitting 
 
 a body 
 
 Albans 
 
 snit was 
 
 ince of 
 
 Yonng-, 
 
 lenibers 
 
 service 
 
 nal dis- 
 Miiorial' 
 itiniony 
 Mlge by 
 organ- 
 of the 
 ;ard to 
 
 o show 
 to take 
 mothe 
 Jacob 
 real at 
 
 the same time. The evidence of these and other witnesses tended to 
 establish the fact that the raid upon Saint Albans was arranged and 
 organized in Canada; that the fact that that raid or similar raids were 
 in contemplation w?.s known to high officers of the Canadian govern- 
 ment, among others to Sir George E. Cartier and Sir Etianne Tach«5, 
 then members of the Canadian ministry ; to Col. William Ermatinger, a 
 stipendiary magistrate, having the entire control of the police force and 
 militia for the district of Montreal, embracing all the frontier towns in 
 Lower Canada bordering upon the United States ; to Lamothe himself, 
 chief of police for the city of Montreal ; and to Judge Coursol, govern- 
 ment superintendent of police for the city and district of Montreal. 
 
 The claimants also put in evidence the report of Frederick William 
 Torrance, esq., who was commissioned in January, I8G0, by the Cana- 
 dian government to investigate and report upon the proceedings con- 
 nected with the arrest, examination, commitment, and discharge of 
 the raiders, the seizure of the moneys found upon them, rnd the cir- 
 cumstances connected with the giving up of such moneys ; also, whe^ner 
 there was any refusal to execute any warrant for the re-arrest of the 
 accused; if so, ly whom and for what reason; and generally to obtain 
 authentic information of all matters and things connected with such 
 arrest, discharge, and re-arrest of the i)risoners, and the seizare, deten- 
 tion, and giving up of the moneys. In this report, made to the Cana- 
 dian government and dated 18th May, 1805, ]Mr. Torrance went fully 
 over the whole ground committed to his investigation, ]\Iessrs. Coursol 
 and Lamothe appearing before him and being permitted to cross-exam- 
 ine witnesses. The report recited the facts fouiul by him, including tlio 
 transactions at Saint Albans substantially as alleged in the memorials; 
 thetiightof the raiders into Canada, closely pursued by tiie citizens of Ver- 
 mont; the arrest in Canada of several of the raiders by the local authori- 
 ties in the district bordering upon Vermont; the seizure upon the persons 
 of those arrested and in deposits where secreted by them of about 887,000 
 plundered from the banks ; the subsequent taking of jurisdiction of the 
 cases of the persons arrested by Judge Coursol, and the transfer of 
 those persons to Montreal ; the examination of the prisoners, or some of 
 them, before Judge Coursol, the government of Canada, the United 
 States, aud the prisoners all being represented upon such examination, 
 and the same having been continued from the 7th November to the I3th 
 Deceniber, including an adjournment of several weeks during tlmt time 
 to enable the defendants to make proof of their relations to the govern- 
 ment of the Confederate Stales, and to show that their acts were those 
 of lawful belligerents and not of private robbers. Tluit on the l.'ith 
 December an objection was raised by the counsel for the prisoners to 
 the jurisdiction of Judge Coursol, which objection had some days pre- 
 viously been made the subject of a private interview betw^een Judge 
 Coursol and the counsel for the prisoners ; and that thereupon tht^ pris- 
 oners were immediately discharged, aud the money found upon them. 
 
26 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 ill 
 
 to tlic amomit of about 887,000, was surrendered to them hy the chief 
 of ])oli(!e, niidi'r the i)rivato advice of Judge Coursol, though without 
 any jiulicial order to that eilVct. Tlie repeat of Mr. Torrance acquitted 
 both .ludgc Coursol and I\Ir. Laniothe of the ini[)utation of being iu- 
 liuenct'd by corrupt motives. It showed that after the discharge of the 
 l)risoncrs by fludge Coursol, new complaints were made on behalf of the 
 claimants or their Government before Mr. Justice Smith, on which war- 
 rants issued for the re-arrest, and that the execution of these warrants 
 was refused by Mr. Lamothe and one of his deputies. Under the in- 
 structions of Sir George E. Cartier, and under the stimulus of a reward 
 ottered by the government of Canada for the re-arrest of the prisoners, 
 five of them were shortly afterwards rearrested upon the warrants is- 
 sued by Justice Smith, and on examination Avere discharged bj^ him, on 
 the ground that their acts at Saint Albans were belligerent acts and 
 not criipes subjecting them to extradition under the treaty between the 
 United States and Great Britain. 
 
 ]\lr. Torrance stated his conclusions upon the whole case to the follow- 
 ing effe(!t : 
 
 That ^Ir. Lamoihe, as chief of police, committed an improper act iu 
 the surrender of the money to the prisoners without official directions 
 from Judge Coursol, as whose agent he held the money, so to deliver it. 
 That the oral and unofficial instruction of Judge Coursol to Mr. La- 
 mothe to the effect that the ])risoners, if liberated, would be entitled to 
 the possession of the money, was not a sufficient justihcation to Lamothe 
 for its delivery, but was an improper instruction on the part of Judge 
 Coursol, and might have mi.sled Lamothe. 
 
 That Judge Coursol, if his decision that he had no jurisdiction of 
 the case was a correct one, was in fault for having omitted to communi- 
 cate with the Government before announcing such decision and discharg- 
 ing the prisoners, and had laid himself open to the imputation of a 
 grave dereliction of duty in a matter of national importance. And, on 
 the other hand, if his decision that he had no jurisdiction was errone- 
 ous, he was liable to a criminal prosecution by indictment for malfeas- 
 ance in his office by reason of the discharge of the prisoners. 
 
 Ai'.d, finally, that the government of Canada was responsible to the 
 Government of the United States for the acts of Judge Coursol and 
 Mr. Lamothe, and was under obligation to restore the booty brought 
 into the province by the belligerents. 
 
 Under this report the government of Canada subsequently refunded 
 to the claimants, to whom the same belonged, the sum of about $58,000, 
 the gold value of the $87,000 seized from the arrested raiders and sub- 
 sequently returned to them. This payment did not include anything ou 
 account of the still larger sums plundered and carried otf by the raiders, 
 and which never came to the hands of the Canadian authorities. 
 
 On the part of the defence various prominent oflicials of Canada were 
 examined, among them Viscount Monck, governor-general of Canada 
 
AGENT S RErORT. 
 
 27 
 
 tlie chief 
 li without 
 acquitte*! 
 being iii- 
 I'ge of the 
 iiilf of the 
 hich war- 
 warrants 
 er the in- 
 a reward 
 prisoners, 
 rraiits is- 
 y him, on 
 i acts and 
 ween the 
 
 he follow- 
 
 [)er act in 
 lirections 
 leliver it. 
 ) Mr. La- 
 ntitled to 
 Laniothe 
 of Judge 
 
 lietion of 
 
 'onimnni- 
 
 ilischarg- 
 
 ion of a 
 
 And, ou 
 
 s errone- 
 
 nialfeas- 
 
 rofunded 
 !i<.jS,000, 
 an«l sub- 
 thing ou 
 I raiders, 
 s. 
 
 i(hi were 
 Canada 
 
 at the time of the raid ; Sir John A. McDonahl, K. 0. B., and Sir 
 George H. ( 'artier, Bart., members of the Canadian ministry at the same 
 time, whose evidence tended to show (he absence of any su<'h knowledge 
 or information ou their part, in regard to any intended invasion of the 
 United States from Canada, as to call upon them for any precaiitionary 
 acts beyond tliose actually taken by the government, and to siistain 
 the claim ou the part of ITer Majesty's government, that the provincial 
 government of Canada were chargeable with no lack of due diligence in 
 failing to prevent the perpetration of the wrongs alleged by raiders pro- 
 ceeding from Canada in the manner above detailed. 
 
 In argument it was maintained on the part of the claimants that 
 the evidence showed the raid to have been plotted an<l organized in 
 Canada, under the advice and direction of Messrs. C. C. Clay, jr., and 
 Jacob Thompson, confederate agents commorant in Canada. That 
 the sympathies of the Canadian people and the subordinate officials 
 of the government were largely favorable to the confederate cause and 
 hostile to the Government of the United States. That there was 
 no neutrality law in force in Canada at the time of the raid. That 
 in the absence of such neutrality law and by reason of the sympathies 
 of the Canadian people and ofllicials with the confederates, the con- 
 federates were enabled to use Canada as a base of operations — the 
 scene of their plans and arrangements for warlike acts against the 
 United States, as their point of departure upon those raids, and tlieir 
 asylum on their return from them. That supposing it conceded that 
 Lord ]\Ionck and all his ministry wei'c wMthout fault on their part per- 
 sonally, the officers immediately charged with the maintaining of neu" 
 trality upon the frontier— Coursol, Ermatinger, and Lamothe — were 
 shown to have been fully advised of the contemplated invasions, and to 
 have failed of their duty in rei»orting their knowledge to tin' govern- 
 ment, if they did fail so to report it, and in tauing measures to prevent 
 such invasions. 
 
 That the positions of Judge Coursol, as superintendent of police for 
 the city and district of Montreal, and of Colonel Ermatinger, the magis- 
 trate charged with the entire control of the police ihrra and, the militia 
 for the same d'strict, were such as to make notice to them, in fact notice 
 to the government, and that their failure in any respect to i)erform their 
 oflicial duty was the failure of tlie government, and charged Great Brit- 
 ain with the consequences of such neglect. 
 
 That the government of Canada was under obligation to constantly 
 watch the movements of these enemies of the United States thus plot- 
 ting the invasion of a friendly nation from the Canadian soil ; should 
 have arrested the persons engaged in such plots, or should have expelled 
 them from Canada; and, if the law was found insufficient, should have 
 called on Parliament to make it sufficient. That it was the duty of the 
 Canadian Parliament to have provided by law the means of preventing 
 such invasions ; and that the absence of such municipal law could not 
 
28 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 be pleaded in bar of the international liability of the government to 
 perform its duty in preserving neutrality towards the United States, a 
 friendly nation. That in fact the govern me- *• jf Canada actually did 
 nothing to prevent these violations of neu*^- ...iiy from their soil, though 
 with abundant reason, irrespective of proof of actual notice or knowl- 
 edge, to apprehend such invasions by the confederates commorant in 
 Canada ; and that the actual notice of such intentions, brought home to 
 Coursol, Ermatinger, and Lamothe, was a notice to the government itself, 
 which was chargeable with the nonfeasance or malfeasance of those 
 officers. That the government of Canada was held to "due diligence" 
 to prevent military operations by the enemies of the United States from 
 the soil of Canada, as a base of operations, against the United States- 
 That the measure of this diligence was to be determined by the nature 
 of the danger to be apprehended frotn the neutral soil, the magnitude 
 of the danger and the results of negligence, the means of the United 
 States to resist or prevent it, the sympathy and aid which the enemies 
 of the United States might receive in Canada, and the unfriendliness 
 of the people of Canada to the United States, the fact of plans for former 
 raids known to the government of Canada, and the hostile speeches and 
 avowed intentions of the enemies of the United States, found in large 
 numbers in that province. That all these considerations combined to 
 require strict diligence on the part of the Canadian government to i)re- 
 vent hostile incursions into the United States across the long and unpro" 
 tected frontier between those States and Canada. 
 
 The counsel for the claimants insisted that the Canadian government 
 had entirely failed in the performance of these international duties, and 
 that by reason of such failure Great Britain was liable to the United 
 States for the injuries inflicted by the raiders. That the United States 
 had done all in their power, and all which they were required by inter, 
 national latv to do, to i)rotect themselves against such dangers from 
 Canada ; and that the Government of those States haa in their diplo- 
 matic correspondence preferred such claims against the government of 
 Her Britannic Majesty, and had fully provided by the treaty for tlie sub- 
 mission of them to the decision of the commission. 
 
 The counsel for the claimants cited the opinion of Count Sclopis upon 
 the question of due diligence in the tribunal at Geneva; also, on the 
 same subject, 1 Phill., 21, 230 to 232 ; 3 id., 201 to 237 ; Halleck, 
 318, 524. They also cited various passages from the diplomatic corre- 
 spondence between the governments of the United States and Great 
 Britain during the war, and from the papers before the Geneva tribunal, 
 as well as from the protocols to the treaty of 8th of JMay, 1871, to show 
 that the Government of the United States had always claimed the 
 British government responsible for the injuries to their citizens by the 
 St. Albans raid, and that these injuries occupied a i /ominent place 
 among the claims of citizens of the United States against Great Britain 
 
 ^m 
 
 f( 
 
 s 
 
 Ij 
 
AGENTS PT^.PORT. 
 
 29 
 
 ■mneiit to 
 States, 51 
 tually (lid 
 il, though 
 [)!• kiiowl- 
 iioiant in 
 t home to 
 eut itself, 
 of those 
 liligenee" 
 ates from 
 d States, 
 le nature 
 laguitude 
 e United 
 3 enemies 
 endhness 
 or former 
 3(;hes and 
 in hirge 
 ibined to 
 it to pre- 
 id unpro" 
 
 ernment 
 ties, and 
 e United 
 d States 
 by inter. 
 L'rs Iroiu 
 ir diplo- 
 mient of 
 the sub- 
 pis upon 
 , on the 
 Halleck, 
 ic corre- 
 d Great 
 ribunal, 
 to sliow 
 ued tlie 
 s by the 
 it place 
 Britain 
 
 for acta committed daring the war, for the purpose of passing upon 
 wliich this commission was, Instituted. 
 
 On the ])art of the defence it was mamlained by ITer Majesty's coun- 
 sel that the proofs in the ease showed no state of facts importing any 
 lack of care or diligence on the part of the authorities of Canada in the 
 maintenance of their international obligations. That the persons who 
 committed the acts complained of at Saint Albans did not enter the States 
 from Canada in a body, nor with any military array or equipment ; that 
 they passed over the lines from Canada individually or in small par- 
 ties, with the appearance and in the manner of ordinary travellers ; 
 that the authorities of Canada had no reason to suppose them engaged 
 in a hostile expedition against the United States, and that no grounds 
 existed for their arrest or detention by those authorities ; that there 
 was nothing in their appearance or movements to excite suspicion ; that 
 the Government of the United States had, in 1802, voluntarily annulled 
 its own passport regulations which had previous to that time required 
 all persons coming from Canada into the United States to be 
 provided with passports countersigned by t' ^ United States con- 
 sul-general at Montreal; and that from tha^ time until after the 
 Saint Albans raid thera was no regulation interfering with the free 
 and ordinary passage of travellers across the line. That the degree of 
 diligence contended for by the counsel for the claimants would have 
 required of the Canadian authorities a careful examination of every per- 
 son travelling from Canada to the States as to his character and objects, 
 and would, in effect, have abolished the free intercourse between the 
 provinces and the States which had existed under the full assent and 
 approval of both governments. That from the dijilomatic correspond- 
 ence between the two governments it appeared that the United States 
 had never preferred a claim of pecuniary liability against Great Britain 
 on account of this raid ; but, on the contrary, the American Secretary 
 of State, Mr. Seward, had on different occasions expressed his satisfac- 
 tion with the action of the Canadian authorities, and had i)articularly 
 expressed through the British legation his thanks to Lord Monck, the 
 governor-general, for the assistance rendered by the Canadian authori- 
 ties toward the detection and arrest of the offenders. That in the pro- 
 tocols to the treaty, in the four preliminary notes between Mr. Secretary 
 Fish and Sir Edward Thornton, on the subject of the formation of the 
 Joint High Commission which framed the treaty, and by the contiden- 
 tial memorandum or brief sent by Secretary Fish to General Scheuck 
 of that commission for the information and guidance of himself and 
 colleagues, there was no allusion to the Saint Albans raid, much less to 
 any claims on the part of the United States growing out of the acts com- 
 mitted or omitted by the British government in relation thereto. That 
 the only explanation that could be given of this omission was that the 
 Government of the United States did not consider itself entitled 
 to make any international demands in the pr'^mises. That in fact the 
 
30 
 
 AMERICAN-URITISn CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 proofs faihMl to sliow that tlie raid was organiztMl in Canada; tliat tlio 
 raiders proourcMl arms or arnmiiuitiou uhere, or did any oilier act witliiu 
 Her Majesty's donnnions in violation other just neutrality, which was 
 known to, or with due dilij^enee might have been known to, the Canadian 
 authorities. That, on the contrary, the evidence stron<;ly tended to 
 shoAv that the raid was in fact organized within the United States, and 
 that no act compromising British neutrality Avas committed by the 
 raiders. That no liability was shown by the evidence, and none was 
 claimed by the claimants' counsel to exist against Great J>ritain by 
 reason of the omission alleged in the memorials of the Canadian authori- 
 ties to surrender the raiders under the extradition treaty. That the 
 acts of the raiders were belligerent acts, and as such allorded no ground 
 lor extradition. 
 
 iler Majesty's counsel cited the opinion of Count Sclopis in the tribu- 
 nal at Geneva ; also, I Phillimore, 230 to 232. 
 
 The commission unanimously disallowed all the claims. 
 
 Mr. Commissioner Frazer read an opinion, in which I am advised that 
 the majority of the commission concurred, as follows : 
 
 I may not be prepared to say that Groat Britain used that diligence to prevent 
 hostile expeditions from Canada as^ainst the United States which should ho exercised 
 Ly a neutral and friendly neiglbor; but in the view which I take of these claims 
 this ([uestion is not important, and need not, therefore, be decided. 
 
 The raid upon Saint Albans was by a small body of men, who entered that place 
 from Canada without anything to indicate a hostile purpose. They came not in an 
 organized form, so as to attract attention, but ap[)arently as peaceable individuals 
 travelling by railroad and not iu company, and stopped at the A'illago hotels. That 
 there was a preconcerted hostile purpose is unquestionable, but this was so quietly 
 formed, as it could easily be, that even at this day the evidence does not disclose the 
 place, the time, nor the manner. The Government of the United States was at the 
 time diligent, by nuians of its detectives, to know what mischievous expedition might 
 be organized by rebels in Canada, but it failed to discover this one until after it had 
 done its work. Such was the secrecy with which this particular aft'air was planned, 
 that I cannot say it escaped the knowledge of Her Majestv'5 olKicers in Canada because 
 of any want of diligence on their part which may possibly have existed. I think 
 rather it was because no care which one nation may reasonably re<|uire of another in 
 such cases would have been sutticiout to discover it. At least the evidence does not 
 satisfy me otherwise. 
 
 The Lake Erie raid. 
 
 "Walter Oliver Ashley vs. Great Britain, ^o. 19. 
 
 Tliis cas3 was, in general character, and in most of the circumstances 
 accompanying it, analogous to the cases growing out of the Saint 
 Albans raid above reported. The evidence on each side in the Saint 
 Albans raid cases was invoked i»'^o this case j and the case was argued, 
 submitted, and decided in connection with those cases. 
 
 The memori.al alleged that some months prior to September, 1864, 
 confederate refugees, domiciled or commorant in the provinces of Can- 
 ada, there planned and organized a warlike enterprise of forcibly appro- 
 
AGENT S KKPORT. 
 
 31 
 
 ; tliiit tlio 
 
 
 U't within 
 
 /m 
 
 \viii(tli wa.s 
 
 
 Caiiadiiiii 
 
 
 tended to 
 
 w 
 
 (tates, and 
 
 
 'd by tlie 
 
 m 
 
 none was 
 
 
 iritain by 
 
 
 n autUoi'i- 
 
 
 That the 
 
 
 no j-Tound 
 
 
 the tribu- 
 
 
 vised that 
 
 .it^^H 
 
 to prevent 
 
 'i 
 
 )o exercised 
 
 i] 
 
 lesu claims 
 
 '{ 
 
 that place 
 
 
 e not in an 
 
 -' 
 
 individuals 
 
 
 )tels. That 
 
 
 s so quietly 
 
 
 liscldse the 
 
 
 was at the 
 
 '1 
 
 ition raif^lit 
 
 
 fter it had 
 
 
 LIS planned, 
 
 
 ida because 
 
 '^ 
 
 I think 
 
 
 another in 
 
 % 
 
 ;e does not 
 
 
 jniatinfj steamers of tlie United States on Lake Kiie, and nsinj;' lh«Mn for 
 the captnre of the United Stat«,'S war-steamer Miehi;;an, tiu-n sta. 
 tioned on Lake Erie. Tiiat by sneh eajdnre, tlie phm eontemphited the 
 release of some ;J,()UU confederate prisoners coniined on .lolinson's Lsland, 
 in Lake Erie, near the American shore ; and also to obtain «'ontrol of 
 the hikes and power to destioy and pilla,t;e the cities of tlie United 
 States borderinjjf thereon. That the existence of the phm for snch ex- 
 pedition was known to the Canadian anthorities tor many montiis belbro 
 September, 1804, and that snch knowledge was commnnicated by the 
 governor-f^eneral of Canada, in November, IHU'o, to Her Majesty's min- 
 ister at VVasiiinfjton, who communicated it to the War J)t'partment of 
 the United States, but that no steps were taken by Her Majesty's gov- 
 ernuuMit for said provinces to prevent the execution of the plan. 
 
 That on the 10th of Sei>tem ber, 1804, about thirty conle(h'rate sol- 
 diers came on board the steamer Thilo ParHons, a i)rivate freight and 
 l)assenger vessel of the United States, at certain Canadian ports, with 
 concealed weapons shipped as freight, the vessel being then on her reg- 
 ular tri[> from Canadian i)()rts to Sandusky, Ohio. That immediat«'ly 
 after the vessel had crossed the boundaiy line between the Canadian 
 provinces and the States, this party rose with arms upon the crew, took 
 forcible and armed possession of the vessel, nuiking prisoners the oili- 
 cers and crew, threw overboard and destroyed a large <iuantity of the 
 cargo, seized the nu)ney of the claimant, an oHicer and part owner of 
 t!ie vessel, shaped the course of the vessel for the Avar-steamer Michi 
 gan, and on their way overhauled, seized, and sunk in American waters 
 another private steamer of the United States, the Island Queen, but, 
 failing to receive expected signals, abandoned their project of capturing 
 the Michigan, raised theconfederatetlag upon thelMiilo Parsons, changed 
 her course, and proceeded toward Sandwich, in Canada. That on ar- 
 riving at Sandwich on the 20th of September, they plundered the Philo 
 Parsons while lying in British waters, landed their booty in the province 
 of Canada, sunk or partially sunk the steamer, and retreated in a body 
 within the province of Canada with the plundered property taken from 
 , the vessel. 
 
 The memorial contained allegations similar to those contained in the 
 memorials in the Saint Albans cases as to the asylum afforded by Canada 
 to the retreating raiders; as to the negligence of the Canadian authori- 
 ties in failing to prevent the expedition, and also iu failing to take 
 proper steps in apprehending the raiders and surrendering them under 
 the extradition treaty, and iu restoring the property captured and car- 
 ried off by them. 
 
 The claimant claimed himself the assignee of all the other owners 
 and claimed damages in the premises, $10,01)3. 
 
 The evidence in the case sustained the allegations in the memorial as 
 to the circumstances of the capture and destruction of the vessels 
 
82 
 
 AMERICAN-BUITISII CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 iiiiinod, iiw\ the seizure of the property allosred, and as to the assign- 
 ment of tlie claims of other owners to the clai(nant. 
 
 Upon the question of due diligence by the Canadian authorities, the 
 claim was rested on both sides substantially on the evidence taken in 
 the Saint Albans cases, and the arguments of the respective counsel upon 
 this question were substantially those urged in the Saint Albans cases, 
 with the additional point, urged on behalf of the defence, that the Cana- 
 dian government had promptly given notice to the Governinent of the 
 United States of the information received by them as to the contem- 
 l)lated raid, thereby putting the United States Government fully upon 
 its guard. 
 
 The claim was unanimously disallowed. 
 
 The Calcutta saltpetre cases. 
 
 Frederick T. Bush and others .<*. Great Britain, No. 11. 
 Thomas H. Wales and others vs. same. No. 12. 
 Kichard P. Buck and others vs. same, No. 10. 
 Curtis »& Peabody vs. same. No. 18. 
 
 These claims were all of substantially the same character, arising on 
 the same state of facts, and were heard on the same proofs and argu- 
 ments. 
 
 The claimants in No. 11 were the owners of tlie American ship Dar- 
 ing; those in No. 12, of the American ship Templar; those in No. 10, 
 of the American bark Patmos, and those in No. IS, of a portion of the 
 cargo of the Daring, consisting of linseed, saltpetre, jute, and gunny- 
 bags. 
 
 The tliree vessels above named were, on the 27th December, 1801, in 
 the port of Calcutta, in British India. The Daring had at that date taken 
 on board a quantity of saltpetre, as part of her cargo, obtained a clear- 
 atice therefor, and had j^aid the export duty thereon. After that date 
 she completed the taking in of the remainder of her cargo, consisting 
 of linseed, jute, &c., but including no saltpetre, and was completely 
 laden on the 3d January, 1802. 
 
 The Templar had her cargo all on board, including a quantity of 
 saltpetre, on the 27th December. 
 
 The Patmos also was fully laden, including 2,000 bags of saltpetre, on 
 the 27th December. 
 
 On the 30th November, 1801, the following proclamation was issued 
 by Her Britannic Majesty : 
 
 
 by the queen— a proclamation. 
 
 Victoria R. 
 
 Wliereas in and by a certain statute made and passed in the Parliament beld in the 
 Bixtecntli and seventeenth years of onr reign, and intituled " Tlie Customs Consolidation 
 Act, 1853," it is, amongst other things, declared and euacted as follows ; that is to say : 
 
AGENT 8 HKl'OKT. 
 
 3.'5 
 
 10 iissign- 
 
 rities, the 
 1 taken in 
 nsel upon 
 ins cases, 
 the Cana- 
 jut of the 
 e contein- 
 ully upon 
 
 " Tim fcillowiiig jjoddH may, by piocliiiiiatioii or iiiilur in council, bo jtrohibitcil citliiT 
 to be exported or carried ci>ast\vi»4c: Anns, aninninition, and gunpowder, military and 
 naval stores, and any articbss wiiirh HiaMiijcsty shall ,iud;;e capable of beinji; converted 
 into or nntde nscfnl in im^reasiii;; the quantity of military or naval storos, provisions, 
 or any sort of victual which may be nsed as food by num ; aiul if any jiroods ho pro- 
 hibited shall be exixirtcd from tho United Kinjfdom or carried coastwise, or bi^ water- 
 bornt! to be so i^xiiortcd or carried, they shall be forfeited." 
 
 And whereas we have thou<;ht lit, by and with tho iidvico of our privy council, to 
 prnhiiiit either to be exported or (tarried coastwise the articlt!S hennnafter mentioned, 
 (beinj^ articles which we Judije capable of beinjj converted into or maile useful in 
 increasing Hie quantity of military or naval stores,) we, therefore, by and with tho 
 advice of our privy council, and by this our royal proclamation, do order and dir(M',t 
 that, from and after tim date hereof, all ^uu|)owder, Halt[)etro, nitrate of soda, and 
 brimstone, shall be, and the sann; are hereby, prohibited either to be exported from tho 
 Unitt'd Kiujfdom (u- <arried coiistwise. 
 
 (Jiven at our court, at Wimlsor, this thirtieth day of November, in the year of our 
 Lord one thousantl eight hundred and sixty-ono, and iu the twenty-lifth year of our 
 rei;rn. 
 
 (jlod save the Queen. 
 
 On tho 27th December, ISfil, the following ordinance was promul- 
 gated by tho governor-general of India: 
 
 irismg on 
 tad ai'gu- 
 
 ^hip Dar- 
 n No. IG, 
 on of the 
 d gunny- 
 
 18G1, in 
 ate taken 
 il a clear- 
 hat date 
 onsisting 
 mipletely 
 
 antity of 
 petre, on 
 IS issued 
 
 teld in the 
 isulidatioa 
 is to say : 
 
 LK(JISLATIVK. 
 
 The followin}^ ordinance, passed by the <;ovcrnor-general of India on this date,, "iv 
 heieby promulgated for genera'i information : 
 
 OHDINANCK. 
 
 AN OllDINANCE to proliibil tho oxportation of saltpntro, oxcopt la Britisli vi-ssola bound to elio 
 ports 111' London or Livcrpoid, pii.sHod by tbo <;ovfi-nor-(?i'neriil of India, undfi- tho provisiurs of ^4 
 and '25 Vic,., cap. 07, on tlie -JTth Dfconibcr, l*!(il. 
 
 Whereas information has reached the governor-general by public telegraph tbiit) the 
 exportation of saltpetre from the United Kingdom has been interdicted by royal pn)f- 
 lamation, and it is, therefore, expedient that tho exportation of saltpetre from India, 
 except in British vessels bound to tho port of Loudon or to the port of LivcriK>ol, 
 should be i)rohibited: It is ordered as follows : 
 
 I. Until the governor-general, in council, shall otherwise order, it shall not Ik? law- 
 ful for any person to export siiltpetre from any port of Her Majesty's territwies in 
 India, except in a British vessel bound either to the port of London or to tlwi po^rt of 
 Liverpool. 
 
 IL If any person shall attempt to export saltpetre, contrary to the provisions of this 
 ordinance, the same shall be seized and confiscated. 
 
 III. No collector or other officer of the customs shall after this date grant a i)a8S or 
 permit for tho exportation, or shipment for exportation, of saltpetre from any port of 
 the said territories, except iu a British vessel bound for the port of London or for the 
 port of Liverpool. 
 
 IV. Nothing in this ordinance shall extend to any saltpetre shipped prior to this 
 date, or to any saltpetre for the exportation or shipment whereof a permit or pass has 
 been granted on or before this date. 
 
 W. GREY, 
 
 Secretary ta Governor of India.' 
 3h 
 
3; 
 
 AMDKKAN-IJRITISII CLAIMS COMMISSION', 
 
 On tlic .'5(1 Jnimary, ISOL', tlio fMll()\viii}>: iiotiliciitiitn was IssimmI and 
 juUlitioiial ordiinuioc was proiiiulgatcd l>y tlio {iOvi'iiioryciRTal of India: 
 
 NOTiriCAiroN. 
 
 FouT Wli.MAM, Janmrii '.\, IHfia. 
 Wliciviis it is (Iccliirod by tlio onliiianci! passi-d Ity tlio nov<frnor-;;()iicnvl of Iiidiii, on 
 Mif.27ili ni'cciiiiu'r, Hi>l,tiiiit until till' ^rovoriioi-ntMionii, ill (•ouiiciij.sliiiiiotiii'rwiMconlcr, 
 it HJiall not ii(( Idwiiil for any jusrson to export HaUpi-trt) tVoni any part of lli'r Miijcsty's 
 territiirics in Intlia, cxctpt in Uritiwli vcwbcIh bound ('ith«!r to tlio port of London or t» 
 tht' port of riivcr[)ool ; ami whoroan it appears from instrnctioii sinco nuu-lvi'd from 
 Htu- Maji'sty's ;;ov()rnmiint tbat tbo proliiitition to export sallpctri! from India, so far 
 as ro^jards Mritisii vi'ssids is to apply only to sucli vcsstds wliun btnind to ports not 
 within the Cniti-d KinM;dom, the ffovornor-gcneral, in (ionneii, is pleasod to order, ac- 
 cordini;ly, that it shall bo lawful to export saltpetre on Hritisli vessels Ijound to any 
 port of tilt) United Kiiif^dom, anythiiij; in tho said ordinance notwithstaiidin)^. 
 liy order of the ^ovt)rnor-<j;ont)ral, in council. 
 
 W. (Jlii:v, 
 Secretary to Ihr Govvriuncni of India. 
 
 I 
 
 li 
 
 LEOLISLATIVK. 
 
 Janmjai!Y :!, lrt(ii>. 
 The f<dlowing ordinance, passed by tho governor-general of India, on this date, is 
 promulgated for general intbrniatiou : 
 
 AN<)Rl)IX.\X<!i'; to priitiibit fhoiix])ortiitioiiof aaltpctro, cxcopt in Britisli vessels bnuiiiltn the rTiiited 
 Kiii^'iloiii, piisseil l)y ll>o K'lvcrnor-gcucral of Iiidiu, iiuilor tlio pi'uvisiuuti ut' d4 uiid 'Jj Vic, r. 07, o« 
 tlie tliinl of Januury, ISOi. 
 
 Whereas in a dispatch from tlio secretary of state for India, datud the third DocDni- 
 ber, IrT)!, the instructions of Her Majesty's governnieiit havt, b(!en receive<l by tho 
 governor-general, in council, to take iminoLliate muasiiros for inoventing the expDrta- 
 tion of saltpetre from India, except in British vtsssels bound for tho ports in the 
 United Kingdom, and to cause any saltpetre which, previously to tho receipt, and con- 
 trary to till! coiiilitions of tho said instructions, may have been placed on bi)ard vessels 
 still in j)ort, to bo re-landed; and whereas, in conse(|ueiice of the said instructions, the 
 governor-general, in council, has this day ordered that it shall bo lawful to export salt- 
 petre on British vessels bound to any port of the United Kingdom, anything in the ordi- 
 nance of the governor-general the 27th December, 1831, notwithstanding ; and whereas 
 jt is expedient to make further pr<'.i>''on for giving etlect to the instructions now re- 
 ceived iioin Her Majesty's governnuinL It is, therefore, ordered as follows : 
 
 I. Until the governor-general, in conueil, shall otherwise order, it shall not be lawful 
 to (sxport saltpetre from any pail ■.•.! iler Majesty's territories, except in a British ves- 
 uel bound to a port of the United Kingdom. 
 
 II. All saltpetre which previously to the promulgation of this ordinanct* may have 
 been placed for exportation on any vessel still being within a port of Her Majesty's ter- 
 rit(uies in India, and not being u British vessel bound for a port of tho United Kingdom, 
 shall be re-landed. 
 
 HI. No collector of customs or other officer shall grant a port-clearanco to any ves- 
 sel having ou board saltpetre, other than a British vessel bound for tho United Kingdom. 
 
 IV. If any person shall attempt to export saltpetre contrary to the provisions of this 
 ordinance, the same shall be seized and confiscated. 
 
 V. Any custom-house officer may without warrant seize saltpetre liable to confisca- 
 tion under this ordiuauce. 
 
 W. GREY, 
 Secretary to the Government of India. 
 
 ^ 
 
 fc-.. 
 
AG i:\TS REPORT. 
 
 3'. 
 
 >hm1 iind 
 )!' India: 
 
 1 :5. IH(W. 
 
 ■ liidiii, oil 
 rt'isd order, 
 r M;i,)i"Hty'H 
 )ii(loii or t» 
 
 ■ ivcil tVoin 
 iiU:i, «« I'll'' 
 (, ports not 
 ) ordt^r, ac- 
 iiml to any 
 n^'• 
 
 i;hv. 
 
 ( (if India. 
 
 this <liiti), is 
 
 lilt" till) niiit<"l 
 Vic-., f. »i7, oil 
 
 liiril Decuni- 
 ivi'tl l>y tli« 
 ,lu'. oxporta- 
 ports in the 
 
 pt, and con- 
 id) iinl vessels 
 luctions, the 
 ) export siilt- 
 iii thiMU'di- 
 
 ind wlicroas 
 Itions now re- 
 |s : 
 
 |u)t bi) lawful 
 British vos- 
 
 |ic« may havo 
 Majesty's ter- 
 tcd Kingdom, 
 
 |ce to any ves- 
 ted Kiuj^dom. 
 nsions of this 
 
 ke to coufisca- 
 
 Igrey, 
 
 ent of India. 
 
 TIm' vcMsrls ill qiU'stioii liiiviiij; their car^^ocs on Ixtanl. and tlii-ir nnis 
 tcrs iM'lit'viiif;- that tlic piohihitiitii woiihl he hut tt'iiiixnary, it was net 
 dt'i'iiH'd I'XiM'diciit to uidoad ilir siiltiu'tro which hiy, in v.u-h case, at tlit- 
 l»ottom of tho hoi , thus n'(|uiri!i<? the uiihulin^^ of the entire car^-o ; 
 and the vessels a(U'oidiiinI.v leinained in port atC-alciitta until -*Sth I'eh 
 riiary, ISCt'J, on whieh ay the several ordiiumees prohibitino- the export 
 ation of saltpetre wen' revoked. They were respectively ready to sail 
 with their earj-oes, but for tlie prohibition, on the adjHth, and -M»th days 
 of .lauuary, respectively; and the chiini in each case was for deinurrajie, 
 from the time the vessels were respectively ready to sail until permitte«l 
 to sail by the revocation of the ordinances, it beinj,^ averred in each cas«' 
 that the demurrage thus claiine<l was less than the expense of unladin;;- 
 tlu' car<;() would have been. 
 
 The masters of the respective vessels duly protested before the I'liited 
 States consul j;eiieral at Cahuitta against the prohibition of exportation 
 of saltj)etre, and ajjainst the detention of their vessels by occasion 
 thereof, claiiniufj their damages for the demurrage. The claims were, 
 during the year IStili, made the subject of diplomati(5 correspondence 
 between the two governments, the United States claiming compensation 
 on behalf o<' Mie parties aggrieved, and the British government vindi- 
 Ciitiiig the legality of the ordinancesand of the prevention of the sailing 
 of the vessels with the saltpetre on board during the continuance of such 
 ordinances. 
 
 The provisions of the statute of IGth and I7th Victoria, under which 
 tlie royal i)roclamatiou was issued, and ui)on which the ordinances of the 
 governor-general were founded, are re(*ited in the royal proclamation 
 above given. The convention between the United States and Great 
 Tiritain of July 3, 181a, continued by the conventions of LM)th Octolier, 
 1818, and of 0th August, 1827, and in force at the time of the acts in 
 question, are as follows : 
 
 AuTicr.K III. His Britannic Miijesty iif^recs that the vessels of tin; United States 
 of America shall be admitted and hospitably received at tin* principal settlements of 
 the British <lominions in tin? East Indies, videlicet: Calcntta, Madras, IJombay, and 
 I'rince of Wales' Island ; and that the citizens of the saiil United States may freely 
 carry on trade between the said principal s<!ttlements and the said United States, in 
 all articles of which the importation and exportation, respectively, to and from the 
 said territories, shall not be entirely prohibited ; provided only, that it shall not be 
 lawful for them, iu any time of war between the British government and any state t>r 
 power whatever, to export from the said territories, without the special permission of 
 the British government, any military stores or naval stores, or rice. The citizens of the. 
 United States shall pay for their vessels, wheu admitted, no higher or other duty or 
 charge than shall be payable on the vessels of the most favored European nations, and 
 they shall pay no higher or other duties or charges on the importation or exportation 
 of the cargoes of the said vessels than shall bo payable on the same articles when im- 
 ported or exported iu the vessels of the most favored European nations. 
 
 But it is expressly agreed that the vessels of the United States shall not carry any 
 articles from the said principal settlements to any port or place, except to some port 
 or place iu the United States of America, where the same shall be uuladen. 
 

 3G 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 It is iiIho understood that tbo permission granted by this article is not to extend to 
 iillow the vessels of tbo United States to carry on any part oftlie coasting trade of the 
 said Uritislj territories; bnt tlie vessels of the United States having, in the first in- 
 stance, proceeded to one of the said principal se^^^tleinents -ii the British dominions in 
 the East Indies, and then going with their original cargoes, or part thereof, from one 
 of the said principiil settlements to another, shall not bo considered as carrying on the 
 coasting trade. The vessels of the United States may also touch for refreshment, bnt 
 not for commerce, in the course of their voyage to or from the British territories iu 
 India, or to or from the dominions of the Emperor of China, at the Cape of Good Hope, 
 the island of St. Helena, or such other places as may bo in the jiossession of Great 
 Britain in the African or Indian seas; it being well understood that in all that regards 
 this article the citizens of the United States shall be subject, in all respects, to the laws 
 and regulations of the British government from time to time established. 
 
 The proclamatiou and ordiuances in question were promulgated by 
 oceasion, and iu view of the arrest on the high seas of tlie Britisli mail- 
 steamer Trent, and the taking from that ves.sel of Messrs. Mason and 
 Slidell, agents and emissariesof the confederate government, by a vessel 
 of war of the United States, and in the apprehension of probable hostili- 
 ties between the United States and Great Britian on account of such 
 arrest and seizure. 
 
 On the part of the claimants it was contended that, iriespective of 
 treaty stipulations between the United States and Great J3ritain, the 
 proelauiation and ordinan(!es were in effect an embargo on saUi>etre- 
 laden vessels bound for non-British ports, at least during the time it 
 would take to unlade the saltpetre; that it was a civil, as distinguished 
 fi oni ii hostile, embargo, not directed against vessels of the United States 
 exclusively, but as a husbanding of resources merely, though in anticipa- 
 tion of probable hostilities, and tliereby having some features of a hostile 
 embargo; that even in the case of a hostile embargo, if war does not 
 ensue, i'lnocent sufferers have a just claim for indemnity, recognized by 
 international law and practice; that a fortiori there is always a Just 
 claim for indemnity by sufferers in the case of a civil embargo; that the 
 fact that the embargo was justified by the municipal law of Great Britain 
 did not relieve that government from liability under international law; 
 that the action of the American commander in the arrest of the Trent, and 
 the seizure and removal of the two passengers named, were notjustilied 
 by his instructions, and were subsequently disavowed by his government, 
 and therefore no international wrong was ever committed by the United 
 States; and that, therefore, such action atfbrded no justification of 
 measures by the British governmei't in anticipation of war, even if the 
 measures in question wt uld have been justified by the emergency, if the 
 acts of the oHicer had been avowed by his government; that if the royal 
 ].roclamation and the ordinances were not to be considered as constituting 
 an embargo, but only a matter of domestic and police regulation, they cer- 
 tiiinly constituted a violation of the rights of friendly foreigners, and 
 involved liability for comp«Misation ; and that, in the case of the Daring, 
 the ordinance of tlue 27th December having clearly given her the right 
 to sail with the cargo already loaded, this permission, with the subse 
 
 
 
agent's report. 
 
 or 
 o I 
 
 extend to 
 •ado of the 
 lio first in- 
 minions in 
 f, from one 
 ing on tlie 
 linient, but 
 riitories in 
 3lood Hope, 
 in of Great 
 liat ro^ardB 
 to tlie laws 
 
 I gated by 
 itisU mail- 
 lason and 
 by a vessel 
 L)le hostili- 
 Qt of such 
 
 spective of 
 tritain, the 
 saUpetre- 
 the time it 
 .tiiisnished 
 itod States 
 
 II anticipa- 
 of a hi^stile 
 ir does not 
 jognized by 
 [vays a. just 
 
 ); that the 
 leat Britain 
 ional law; 
 Trent, and 
 lotjustitied 
 verninent, 
 Ithe United 
 iication of 
 iveu if the 
 ncy, if the 
 f the royal 
 lonstituting 
 in, they cer- 
 pgiiers, and 
 ;he Daring, 
 [r the right 
 the subse 
 
 'a 
 
 queiit acts done and expense incurred by her owners on the faith thereof, 
 in continuing to lade their cargo on top of tiie saltpetre, in relian(;e on 
 the ordinance, constituted a contract, and entitled the vessel to the 
 observance of that contract by the Indian authorities. 
 
 Under the treaty between Great Britain and the United States, the 
 claimants respectively contended that the right of the vessels in cpies- 
 tion to sail with the saltpetre on board was gnaraniied by the terms of 
 the treaty. That " exportation " of saltpetre " from the said territories " 
 was not "entirely prohibited" by the terms of the ordinances, for such 
 exportation was allowed to England. Tliat transportation from India to 
 England was an " exportation from the said territories," and was so 
 re(;ogiii/.ed by the terms of the proclamation itself, which recited, " it 
 shall not be lawful for any person to ex^mrt saltpetre from any part of 
 Her Majesty's territories in India, except in a British vessel bound cither 
 to the port of London or to the port of Liverpool." That the acts in 
 ([nestion were plainly not "in time of war between the British govern- 
 iiuMit and any state or jiower whatever." That the language of the 
 treaty ])roviding " that in all that regards tiiis article, the citi 
 zens of the United States shall be subject in all respects to the laws 
 and regulations of the British government from time to time estab- 
 lished," could not be construed so as to authorize the local authorities 
 to deny rights expressly stipulated for ia the treaty, and formed no 
 bar to the right of the claimants to sail with the saltpetre on board 
 their vessels, the same having been lawfully taken on board. 
 
 The claimants' counsel cited the Boedes Lust, 5 Bob., 24G ; Beawes 
 Mcr. Law, L'7() ; U.S.Stat. Jit L., 381, reimbursing suffererts r'rom the 
 Bordeaux embargo ; Dana's Wheaton, p. 4, § 15 ; p. 37.'i, § 21)o ; od IMiill., 
 42; Iloneyman arguendo^ in Aubert Vft. Gray, 3 B. and S., Q. B., 170; 
 letter of Lord Clarendon to Mr. Dallas, of May 15, 1850, Br. and Am. 
 Dip. Cor.; Gardn. Inst, of Int. Law, 540. 
 
 Her IMajesty's counsel maintained that both under international law, 
 irrespective of treaty stiimlation, and under the treaty stipulations 
 between the Uniteii States and Great Britain, the proclamation and 
 ordinances in (luestion were lawful and valid, and involved no liability 
 for (!ompensation to parties injured by their provisions. That they wore 
 eeneral regulations, not directed against the ships or cargoes of these 
 claiiiiants in particular, nor subjecting the ships or commerce of the 
 United States to any discrimination or disadvantage not common to 
 all other foreign nations. That even British ships were subjected to 
 the same disadvantage; and the right of exporting saltpetre to the 
 mother country reserved to them was a right which never had belonged 
 to the United States. That commercial adventures of this character 
 were, in the nature of things, subject to any modification of law which 
 migiit affect the anticipated profits, and perhaps defeat them altogether. 
 That the ordinances did not constitute an embargo in any just sense, 
 whether hostile or civil. That they wero municipal regulations of trade, 
 
38 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 ' 
 
 not forbidden by any principle known to the law of nations. And that, 
 aside from the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, 
 they were clearly authorized by international law. That a Just inter- 
 pretation of the third article of the convention of 1815 must hold it 
 not to prohibit the British government from regulating the exportation 
 of i)roducts of the Indies, from time to time, as might be deemed exi)e- 
 dient, or in its discretion from temporarily prohibiting the exportation 
 of some or all of such products to any foreign nation whatever. And 
 tliat of the occasion of such proliibition and its extent, every nation 
 must of necessity be for itself the sole judge. 
 
 That the treaty permitting the trade between the Indian ports and 
 tile United States in articles the exportation of which " shall not be 
 entirely prohibited," gave no right to those citizens to export saltpetre 
 at the time in question, the exportation of that article being by the 
 terms of the ordinances entirely' prohibited. That the word "exi)orta- 
 tion " referred to foreign commerce, and not to the transportation from 
 the Indies to the home ports of Great Britain. That the reservation of 
 the right of transportation to such home jjorts was in no respect '>iejir 
 dii'ial to the commerce of the United States, they having lu, .i-rl. iu 
 l)arti('ii)ate in the trade between Indian ports and the ports o; Gieat 
 Britain. That the treaty itsi'lf providing for this trade also provide<l 
 that the citizens of the United States should be subject in all resi)ects 
 to tlie laws and regulations of the British government, and thus ex- 
 l)ressl.\ subjected them to the operation of ordinances like those in ques- 
 tion i;uthoriz(Ml by the statute upon which they were based. That the 
 ordinances of 27th December and .'3d January were Just, caused by an 
 act of an armed vessel of the United States in violation of international 
 law, and affording a re.isonable apprehension of hostilities to ensue be- 
 tween Great Britain "ud the United States. That in such case all 
 means of i)rotection and telfdefense, not in themselves at variance with 
 the ordinary principles of Justice, and impartially used, were permissible 
 to eveiy government, and that this prerogative having been exercised 
 houa Jide for the safety of the realm on a particular emergency by :v 
 prohibition ecjually affecting native subjects and foreign merchants, the 
 latter have no ground upon princi[)les of international right or justice 
 to recpiire compensation for such an unavoidable diminution of their 
 ('ommeniial profits. 
 
 Tlie counnission disallowed all the claims, Mr. Commissioner Frazer 
 dissenting and reading a dissenting opinion, a copy of which will be 
 found in the appendix, U. 
 
 •I 
 I 
 
 A ■■4 
 
 Tripjis case. 
 
 Josiah Winslow Tripp vs. Great Britain, No. 15. 
 
 The <!laimant in this case alleged, in substance, by hi? inMnorial that 
 prior to August, 18G2, he was lawfully possessed o a ceria ■; limestone 
 
AGENT S REPORT. 
 
 39 
 
 tViid that, 
 :; Britain, 
 list inter- 
 t hold it 
 portaiion 
 ned expe- 
 por.ation 
 or. And 
 ry nation 
 
 ports and 
 II not be 
 saltpetre 
 ig by the 
 ' exporta ■ 
 tion from 
 ivation of 
 ect 'leiir 
 
 provide*] 
 
 resi)ects 
 
 thus I'x- 
 
 e in qnes- 
 
 riiat the 
 
 m1 by an 
 
 national 
 
 'iisiie be- 
 
 case all 
 
 mee with 
 
 ■niissible 
 
 xercised 
 
 ney by a 
 
 ants, the 
 
 !• justice 
 
 of their 
 
 r Frazer 
 will be 
 
 ^•ial that 
 nestone 
 
 (piarry and lime-kiln, to<?ether with some 1,500 barrels of lime, tools, 
 furniture, &e.,on San Juan Island, in the Territory of Washiuj^ton, be- 
 lon<,Mn-;' to the United States. 
 
 That in his absence from the island in Au;?ust, 1802, his wife was 
 ejected from the pienuses by one Roberts, a British subject, who took 
 possession of the real estate and appropriated the personal jiroperty. 
 That claimant commeiK^ed a suit against Itoberts in a justice's court ot 
 the Territory of Washington to recover the possession of the premises, 
 and obtaine<l judgment for restitution of the property, whi(;li was fol- 
 lowed by a warrant of restitution for its enforcement. 
 
 That Koberts thereupon appealed to Captain Bazalgett, conunander 
 of the British forces on the island. That Bazalgett thereupon applied 
 to INIajor Bissell, commanding the American forces on the island, and 
 that Major Bissell thereupon arrested the claimant and the justice »»f the 
 j)eace who had rendered the judgment against Boberts, put them in the 
 guardhouse, and shortly after expelled the claimant from the island. 
 
 That in April, 1S(J4, the claimant returned to the island, and liuding 
 his claim vacant, took possession of the same, providing anew stock of 
 tools and supplies, and commenced to work the (piarry ; but after ten 
 days spent in it, was again forcibly removed by command of Captain 
 Bazalgett, put in the guardhouse, detained two weeks, ami th.-n ban. 
 ished from the island and forbidden ever to return. 
 
 The nuMuorial alleged the value of the (piarry at $50,000, a'i<l claimed 
 damages by occasion of the jucmises $100,000. 
 
 Evi(ienc(^ was taken on the part of the claiiNant teiuling to sustain 
 his allegations as to his possession of the property and removal there- 
 from. 
 
 At the time of the acts alleged the title of the island of San Juan 
 was in dispute between the United States and (Jreat Britain. an<l the 
 island was occupied bv a joii.t military iovce of the two governments 
 under an .irrangement made between then for such joint occupancy, by 
 which the citizens and subjects of each government were made amena- 
 ble to the authorities of their own government only. 
 
 Bending ihe case before this commission. His Majesty the Emperor 
 '.' (lermany, to whom the decision of the (luestion was referred by the 
 treaty of iSth May, 1871, decide*! the island to be the property of the 
 United States. 
 
 The proofs tiled on the part of the d(,'fen(;e showed that the arrest of 
 Tripp and his expulsion from the island were by order of the com- 
 mander of the United States forces upon the island, and not tlirough 
 any assuniptiou of authority on the part of the commander of the 
 British forces. 
 
 The claimant liled au argument admitting that the arrest and order 
 of banishment on each occasion came from the American commander, 
 but claiming that it was on the complaint of the British commamler, 
 who represented his own government and mad" unfounded charges 
 
40 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 agiiiiist the claiinaiit, wliich wore the cause of his arrest ami banish- 
 ment, and that by reason tliereof tlie British government was liable to 
 his reclamation for damages. 
 
 Tlie commission, without hearing any argument for the defense, 
 unanimously disallowed the claim. 
 
 "'^^ 
 
 
 HuhbelVs case. 
 
 William Wheeler Hubbell vs. Great Britain, No. 17. 
 
 The memorial of the claimant alleged, in effect, that prior to the 1st 
 of July, 1844, the claimant was the inventor of a certain imi)rovement 
 in breech-loading firearms, for which letters patent were issued to him 
 by the United States, dated 1st July, 1844. 
 
 Tiiat in the year 1844 the British government, through Her Majesty's 
 consul at Philadelphia, ordered of the claimant two specimen guns made 
 under the clrm ant's invention and [latent, which were thereupon pro- 
 cured to be m; ! the claimant, and furnished through the consul to 
 Her Majesty's go ment in 1845, and paid for by that government. 
 
 Tlie memorial further alleged th"t " it was understood and agreed 
 that the invention of said mechanical principle " of the claimant " should 
 be paid for by Her Majesty's government whenever it should be deter- 
 mined upon for adoption in Her Majesty's service." That after the re- 
 ceipt of the s[)ecimen guns, in 1845, it was determined by Her Majesty's 
 governnu^nt, in the same year, that it was not expedient to adopt them 
 for use, but that subsequently, on the 14th March, 1805, Her ^lajesty's 
 government made " a full determination of adoption in Her Majesty's 
 service of breech-loading firearms" known as the fSnyder Enfield rifie, 
 containing and embodying the mechanical principle covered by the 
 claimant's invention and patent; and that after such official " determi- 
 mition of adoption," in ]\';'rch, 1805, Her Majesty's government issued 
 to Her Majesty's army and navy 500,000 muskets of the pattern named 
 and covered by the invention and patent of the claimant. 
 
 The claimant claimed a royalty of $1 each upon these muskets, 
 amounting to $500,000, besides interest. 
 
 A tlemnrrer was interjjosed by Her IVIajesty's counsel to the memorial, 
 on the ground that the commission had no jurisdiction of the claim 
 stated in the memorial, and that the memorial alleged no sufiicient 
 ground of claim against Great Britain, in that — 
 
 1. The claim was based upon a contract, exi)ress or implied, which 
 was m)t i claim within the terms or intent of the treaty, not being a 
 claim " aiising out of acts committed against the persons or property of 
 citizens of the United States." 
 
 2. That if such claim on contract were within the jurisdiction given 
 by the treaty, the claimant could have no standing before the commis- 
 sion as an international tribunal until he had exhausted the remedies in 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 
AGENT S REPORT. 
 
 41 
 
 1 banish- 
 liable to 
 
 deieuse, 
 
 3 tlie 1st 
 Dvement 
 cl to him 
 
 yinjesty's 
 lis made 
 poll pro- 
 ;ousul to 
 meiit. 
 I aftroed 
 " should 
 be deter- 
 n' the re- 
 y[ajt\st.Y's 
 )pt them 
 la.jest.v's 
 
 ajesty's 
 ehl ritle, 
 
 by the 
 deterini- 
 
 t issued 
 
 1 luiined 
 
 iiiskets, 
 
 LMuorial, 
 e claim 
 iHieieiit 
 
 , which 
 >eiiig a 
 [lerty of 
 
 |i j^iveii 
 lommis- 
 idies iu 
 
 all the muiiioipal courts of Great Britain, and until Justice had been 
 denied him by such tribunals in re minhnc duhiti. 
 
 [i. That tlie facts allejj:ed in the memorial established nosuch contract 
 as claimed by the claimant for the payment of a royalty upon guns 
 subsequently used and covered by his invention. 
 
 4. That no act of Her Majesty's goveniment was alleged as hap- 
 pening within treaty time, except the "full determination of adoption " 
 alleged to have been made in iNIarch, 1805, and that this was not an act 
 committed against the property of the claimant. 
 
 r>. That the claimant did not appear to have had any property in his 
 alleged invention in England, and that his property in the invention in the 
 United States had expired prior to March, 1805, and was oiien to the 
 whole world. 
 
 On hearing on the demurrer, the claim was unanimously disallowed by 
 the commission. 
 
 V.-CLALMS OF SUBJECTS OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY AGAINST THE 
 
 UNJTED STATES. 
 
 1, — Cla'um for property aUecjed to have been taken and appropriated to the 
 
 use of the United IStates. 
 
 The claims embraced under this head were very numerous, and arose 
 under various circumstances. Most of them may be grouped under 
 the following heads: 
 
 a. Those ibr property in the nature of military supi)lies, taken by 
 authorized ollicers for military use, and vouchers given for tlie same. 
 
 These claims arose sometimes with'- the loyal States, sometimes 
 within the Federal lines, in territory reclaimed from the enemy within 
 the insurrectionary States, and sometimes within the enemy's lines. 
 Among them may be named the case of Thomas Ward, No. 1, \vhi(tli 
 was for cotton taken from the claimant at Wilmington, N. ('., shortly 
 after the capture of that city by the Federal forces, and a[)i)i'oi)riated 
 fertile use of the United States hospital. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was contended that the claimant, 
 being a resident of North Caroliiia, was, by domicile, an enemy (tf the 
 United States. He was found in a town ca|)tured by them, and his 
 property was liable to levies and contributums for their benelit. 
 
 The voucher given was in the following words : 
 
 OlTICE rUOVOST-MAKSlIAL Gl'.NKlt.VL, 
 
 WUmbiijtoH, X. ('., Mnvrh I?, ISti'i. 
 
 Received of Tiiouitis Ward, two bales of cotton. 
 
 P. C. HAYES, 
 Lieut. Col, and I'rovont-Maixhul (ivtuial, l'.S..i., 
 
 and was accompanied by a certificate of an assistant surgeon that the 
 cotton was used for beds in the hospital. 
 
42 
 
 AAfl'.RICAN-UUITISlI CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 Tlio awiuil of the coinmissioii, in wliicU all the members joined, was 
 as follows: 
 
 Witliont <'X)ir(?ssing any opinion on tlie offeot to bo giv(«n to the ovidonco of Tlionias 
 Wiiid and Sarah Ward, tho connnissiontTH aro of tho opinion that the rcciipts and 
 vonehrrs^^ivrn by acknowh'd^jcd onic'crs of tho Army at the time, show that th«' cotton 
 wa.s takt^n from tho chtiniiint for tlu! nsf of the United States. This we think snfli- 
 cicnt, in the absence of iiU conntervailin^ proof, to whow the takinj; by the United 
 States. Xotliin;i; aitjiears to indicates that it was taken as enemy's property, and the 
 qnestionof tlie ri}j;htsoto takc^ is, therefore, not involved. It wiis taken nine ilaysafter 
 tho cajitnro of Wihiiinjjton, N. C, by tlie United States, and the jiossession of the 
 place ever after continned in the United States. We are not, npon the facts before ns, 
 prepared to hold that, at the time of the takinj;' of the cotton, the place was enemy's 
 territory. We ai^nse, therefore, that the claimant is entitled to comi>ensati(>n for the 
 jiroperty, the am-jnnt beinj? the averaj; • valne of cotton nsnally prodnced in that 
 uei<;hiiorhood, with inti^rest at six per cent, per annum until .January :U, 1H7;?. 
 
 We therefore award that the sum of .'?<)"20.44 be paid by tho (iovernment of the 
 I'nited States to the jjovcrnment of Her Britaiuiic Majesty in respect of the claim of 
 Thomas Ward. 
 
 Ill the case of John AVilkinson, No. liS, tho elaiiii was for beef t; ken 
 IVoiii the claimant on ]\Iataj.;'or(la Island, Texiis, by a coiiiiiiissar.v of the 
 United JStates in 1803, and for which vouchers in the usual form were 
 uiveii. The claimant was domic led and his jiroperty situated within 
 the insuircctioiiaiy State of Texas, and apjiarently not within the actual 
 military lines of the United States at the time of the takinjj;. The 
 
 vouchers were all siju'iied by 
 
 irll 
 
 authorized ofUcer, and recited. 
 
 1 
 
 liavi' taken for military purposes from John Wilkinson," the pro]ierty 
 described, and that the same was ne(!essary for the public service, and 
 would be accounted for in the otlicer's monthly returns. 
 
 On tlie part of the United States it was claimed that the takings was 
 a capture under t'.e right of war, and that no liability tor payment arose 
 ajiainst the United States. 
 
 An award was made in favor of the claimant, in which all the coiii- 
 missioners Joined. 
 
 The same principle was applied in all other cases of like character. 
 
 b. Claims for property taken under the command of authorized olli- 
 cers of the United States for military use, whether in the loyal S ^tes 
 or within those portions of the insurrectionary States permanently oc- 
 cupied by the Federal forces, or within those portions of the msiirrec. 
 tionary States not so reclaimed by the United States, and for which 
 property no voucher was given. 
 
 The claim of Jonat! m Braithwaite, No. 31, was for a horse taken for 
 cavalry use in Kentncky, a loyal State, in ISIJI. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was contended that the claimant? 
 being domiciled in Kentncky, had precisely the same remedy for prop, 
 erty taken lor »ul 1 • Uf^o, as citizens of the United States residing within 
 the loyal States ; that the laws of the United States attorded him the 
 
 i 
 
agent's KEI'ORT. 
 
 4.) 
 
 ikmI, was 
 
 (if Tlioiiias 
 (•(•ipts mul 
 I lie cotton 
 liiiik Kiifti- 
 tlii' Kiiited 
 ty. 1111(1 tilt) 
 ' (l.iys after 
 »ion of the 
 s hi'foit* us, 
 lis eiunny's 
 ion for the 
 I'd ill that 
 H7:5. 
 
 n-nt of th« 
 lie i:liiiiii of 
 
 ?i'f t; ken 
 r.v of the 
 nin were 
 (1 within 
 ;lie a(!tiuil 
 iig. The 
 ite.l, "1 
 j)i'()l)erty 
 vice, and 
 
 king was 
 ent arose 
 
 the coin- 
 racter. 
 
 ized ofli- 
 
 S ^tes 
 
 'Utl.V oc- 
 
 iisnrrec. 
 
 ir which 
 
 aken for 
 
 laimantj 
 Cor prop, 
 g within 
 him the 
 
 proper means of secnring compensation before the inoper hnre;in of the 
 
 ^Var Department, and that the case was not one for international re 
 
 chimation. 
 The commission gave an award in favor of the claimant, in which ill] 
 
 the commissioners joined. 
 
 In the case of Sainnel lirook. No. 00, the claim was for certain tar- 
 panlins taken by an anthori/AMl ofticer for the use of the United States, 
 at Memphis, Tenn., in .Iiine, 18(JL*, shortly alter the capture of that city 
 by the Federal forces. 
 
 An award was nmde in fsivor of the claimant. Mr. Commissioner Kra- 
 zer dissenting ui)on the (piestion of the sullicienfjy of i»roofs, but the 
 commissioners all agreeing as to the principle involved. 
 
 It nniy be stated generally that the conunission were unanimous in the 
 allowance of claims for projieity coming under this head when taken 
 wirhin the loyal States or within those portions of the insui rectionary 
 States permanently occupied by the Federal forces, except when some- 
 thing in the nature of the property or in the conduct of the claimant 
 took him out of the condition of neutrality. Tims, for instance, in the 
 case of Itobert Davidson, No. 6(5, the claim was for gun-carjiages aiid 
 other artilk'ry apparatus, manufactured by the (;laimant lor tiic use of 
 the confederate government, and remaining in his possession at the sur- 
 render of New Orleans, together with material for use in the same man- 
 ufacture, which was taken and ajjpropriated by the Federal foi-ces, under 
 the orders of General Banks, s;vne months after the captni'e of New 
 Orleans. The claim was unanimously disallowed. 
 
 Where, however, the taking of the property by the Federal for(!es 
 and the domicile of the claimant were within the enemy's lines, or in 
 those portions of the enemy's country not ret^lainu'd from the enemy, 
 the majority of the commission, on satisfactory evidence tliat th<' piop- 
 erty was taken by authority, or actually appiopriated to military use, 
 made awards in Javor of the claimants, ]\ir. Commissioner Frazer dis- 
 senting, on the ground that one domiciled in the country of the enemy 
 was himself an enemy in law, whether an actual enemy or not; and by 
 well-settled principles of public law his sovereign had no right in such 
 cases to intervene in his behalf against the ordinary treatment of him 
 as an enemy. In the principle thus held in- Mr. Commissioner Frazer, 
 I am atlvised that the presiding commissioner agreed ; but in view of 
 the fact that the United States had, by the establishment of the South- 
 ern claims commission, made provision for the compensation ol its own 
 citizens domiciled within the enemy's country " who rennuned loyal ad- 
 herents to the cause and tiie Government of the United States during 
 the war," for property taken in like manner, (10 Stat, at L., r)L*4, § L*,1 
 he was of opinion that neutral aliens in like situation should be entitled 
 to the same degree of compensation, and, if British subjects, to a stand- 
 ing before the commission for that end. 
 
II' 
 
 44 
 
 AMKRICAN-HRITISII CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 Upon this question Mr. Commissioner Frazor licld that any provision 
 mad*^ lor the paym(Mit of such claims to citiziMis was not in (liscliarj«e of 
 an ohiif^ation imposed by tlie public law, but was a matter of lavor, and 
 could carry with it no oblij^ation on the part of the (lovernment of the 
 United States to extend like compensath)n to others not embraced within 
 the class which it had selected. 
 
 In the case, however, of John Kater, No. 10, claimant was allowed for 
 two horses taken by Sheriihm's army on its raid through the valley of 
 Virginia in August, 1804, all the commissioners joining in this award, 
 General Sheridan's order of August 16,1804, directing the seizure of mules, 
 horses, and cattle for the use of the Army, having in eftect promised com- 
 pensation for such property to loyal citizens. 
 
 In the case of Henry Henderson, No. 41, the claim was for 112 bales 
 of cotton seized by the United States military forces under orders of 
 General BaidvS, on i)lantations in the State of Louisiana, outside of the 
 Federal lines, carried to I'ort Hudson, and there used in the breastworks 
 of the besieging army of General Baid;s for the reduction of that post. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was claimed that this was a tak- 
 ing of enemy's property within the enemy's country for strictly military 
 use, justilied by the laws of war, and for which the United States were 
 not liable to make compensation, the claimant being permanently domi- 
 ciled in the enemy's country, and subject to the same treatment as other 
 enemies. The claim was allowed by the m:\jority of the commission, Mr. 
 Commissioner Frazer dissenting and placing on the records of the cou)- 
 mission a dissenting opinion, a copy of which will be found in the appen- 
 dix, F. 
 
 c. Claims for property alleged to have been taken and approi)riated 
 by the United States forces within the enemy's country, not appearing 
 to have been taken under any regular requisition or order for military 
 use, or by command of any authorized officer. 
 
 These claims were numerous and of great variety in regard to the cir- 
 cumstances of the alleged taking. It is somewhat ditlicult to draw the 
 precise line of distin(!tion by which the majority of the commission were 
 guided in their decisions. It may, perhaps, be said geiuMally that the 
 commission (Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting) ma<le awards in favor 
 of the claimant whenever it appeared by satisfactory evidence that the 
 property so taken was a legitimate subject of military use and was 
 actually applied to military uses, even though such application was not 
 made through the regular and ordinary channels. On the other hatui, 
 where the property was in its nature not a proper subject of military 
 use, or, being such, was not applied to military use, or where the taking 
 appeared to be mere acts of unauthorized pillage or marauding, the 
 claims were disallowed. 
 
 "•>> 
 
 
 s 
 
AGENTS KEI'OKT. 
 
 45 
 
 )rovision 
 
 llliUjiO of 
 ivor, jiud 
 lit of the 
 !(l within 
 
 owed for 
 valley of 
 is award, 
 of nmles, 
 sed com- 
 
 L12 bales 
 )rder8 of 
 le of the 
 iistworks 
 liat post, 
 as a tak- 
 
 iiiilitary 
 ites were 
 tly doini- 
 
 as other 
 
 jsioii, Mr. 
 
 le coiu- 
 
 appeii- 
 
 oi)riated 
 )ponriiig 
 military 
 
 Tn the case of Thomas Stirling, No. 12, were inchuhMl as well claims 
 for property destroyed by the IJiiiteil States Army in its inardu's and 
 encaminnents in the State of Virjj;inia, as for horses, carriajjfes, eattle, 
 hoj^s, tlonr, corn, and bacon alleged to have been t.iken and (iarried otf 
 by the soldiers. The proofs showed nothinj-; beyond the <lisappearance 
 of the property in the presence of the United Statcss Arnjy. The decision 
 of the commission, in which all the commissioners joined, was made in 
 the following words : 
 
 The .-vets (loiio iipDii which this duini is basoil hoimii to have bona tlio onVniary rc- 
 sultH iiici<li>iit to tho luan-h of an iiiviMling iirmv in ii hostih* territory, witli possibly 
 some, niiiintliorized acts of destruction and i)ilh><,'o by the soldiery, with no jjroof of 
 approiniation by the United States. Under such eirennistanees llievi! is no crninnd 
 for a valid claim a<;ainst the United States. The claim is, therefore, disalloweil. 
 
 In the case of the Misses Hayes, No. 100, milliners, at Jackson, Miss., 
 a claim was made for a stock of millinery <?oods and like i>roperty, 
 allejicd to have been taken by soldiers of the United States Army on 
 the first ca|>ture of Jackson, in May, 1803. The acts complained of 
 appeared, if committed by United States soldiers, to have been acts of 
 pillatfe merely, and the claim was nuanimously disallowed. 
 
 In the cases of Michael Grace, No. 132, Elizabeth Bostock, No. 133, 
 Thomas McMahon, No. 130, and others, at Savannah, being claims for 
 property alleged to have been taken and appropriated by United States 
 soldiers, the same appeared to have been by acts of nnauthori;ced i)illage, 
 and were rejected. 
 
 In the cases of Bridget Lavell, No. 130, Ann O'llara, No. 13r>, Will- 
 iam II. Bennett, No. 137, and William Cleary, No. 220, at Savannali, 
 awards were made, Mr. Commissioner Fra/.er dissenting, for jsroperty 
 taken by the United States forces, thongh withont proof of the inter- 
 vention of an anthorized otticer, the i)roperty being in the nature of 
 commissary's and qnarternmster's supplies, applicable to the proper use 
 of the Army, and actually, though perhaps irregularly, appropriated to 
 Army use. 
 
 In the case of David Jacobs, No. 230, large claims were made for 
 watches, jewelry, silks, and other valuable goods, liquors and tobacco^ 
 alleged to have been taken by General Sherman's army at Columbia, on 
 the cnpture of that city, as well as for the destruction of other property 
 by the burning of that city. 
 
 An award was made, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting, for the 
 tobacco taken from this claimant, on proof that it was carried off in 
 Army wagons, tobacco being allowed as an Army ration. All the other 
 claims for property taken from this claimant were disallowed. 
 
 In the case of Watkins and Donnelly, administrators, No. 320, an 
 award wa.s made against the United States, in which all the eomuiis- 
 
40 
 
 AMERlCAN-HRITISIl CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 ;! is 
 
 ''i 
 
 sioiKM's JoiiUMl, for proporty pillii^^cd by rnitcil Stiitos soldiers in tlio 
 iii^^lit from ii ('oiintry sUnv in Missouri, a State not in insnri'ccjtion, upon 
 pro if sliouin;!,' f^reat ni';;Uict of «lis(!i|)Iini^ on tlic part of Colonel .lenni- 
 sjn, the eoininandin^' oHicer, and liis ne<ii«'(!t and refusal to take any 
 ste|>s for the surrender of the stolen property or the punishment of the 
 olli'iiders when notifUMl of the facts, and that a part, at least, <». the 
 stoU'n [>roperty was then in possession of his troops. 
 
 (1. Claims for the use and oeciupation of lands and buildinj^s within 
 the loyal portions of the United States, or within those portions of the 
 insurrectionary States pernninently reclaimed by the United States, antl 
 for damaj>es resnltinj;- from such use and oc('n[Kitit)n. 
 
 In the case of .Tames Crutcdiett, No, 4, claim was made for the use and 
 occupation of a factory building of the claimant in the (Mty of Washinj; 
 ton, which was from .Inly, 1S(»1, to the end of the war, occupied by the 
 United States as barracks, (juarters, and oflices for troops and ollicers, 
 and also for larf^e resnltinjn' dainaj^es to the (.'laimant's business by this 
 oc(ai[>ation of the buildings and removal of the machinery, &c. 
 
 The proofs showed that the premises were taken possession of by the 
 U'nited States under the right of en»inent donnun for military use, and 
 that partial piiyments of the rent had been made to the claimant, who 
 ha<l been tor many years domiciled in the city of Washington. 
 
 The (!ounsel of the United States tiled a demurrer to the memorial, 
 specifying, among other ground>', that the claimant and his property, 
 thus domiciled and situated, were ;-iubject to the exercise of the right of 
 eminent domain over the property by the United States; and that for 
 the exercise of such right and the occupation of the i)roperty, full com- 
 pensation could be had by the claimant under the munici[)al laws au«l 
 authority of the United States ; and that such acts were, therefore, iu)t 
 the subject of international reclamation. 
 
 On the argument of the demurrer the counsel for the United States 
 contended that the claimant, domiciled within the United States, was 
 subject to all the burdens and liabilities of other inhabitants of those 
 States, ami could claim no better position or superior rights in 
 regard to the United States than a native-born or naturalized citizen of 
 those States. That for the occupation of his premises he was entitled, 
 uiuler the Constitution of the United States, to comj)ensation, and that 
 the Court of Claims had full jurisdiction of the case, and could have 
 afforded him full redress. 
 
 The counsel cited the letter of Earl Granville to Mr. Stewart, (No. 23 
 of parlianientai'y papers, No. 4, on the Franco German war, 1871, British 
 state papers;) Professor Bernard's " Neutrality of Great Britain," &c., 
 pp. 440,454; also, the note of Mr. Abbott (Lord Tenterdeu) relating to 
 this identical claim of Mr. Crutchett, id., 450 ; also, the case of William 
 
^rs in tlio 
 ion, npoM 
 iiel J(>nni- 
 3 take any 
 cnt of Mh' 
 
 ist, (.. tll(^ 
 
 i«s within 
 itns of tlic 
 tates, and 
 
 H' nso and 
 Wasliin<; 
 t'd by the 
 id ()tli(;ois, 
 !88 by this 
 
 '» 
 
 of by the 
 y nsc, and 
 nant, who 
 
 nioniorial, 
 property, 
 le ri};ht ol 
 d that for 
 , lull coni- 
 hiws and 
 elbre, not 
 
 ed States 
 .ales, was 
 s of those 
 eights in 
 citizen of 
 5 entitled, 
 and that 
 mid have 
 
 t, (No. 23 
 1, British 
 *in," &c., 
 slating to 
 f William 
 
 AGKNTS KKl'OUr. 
 
 4' 
 
 
 Cook before the coininissioner.s under the convention of isr).'i. between 
 the I'^nited States and (Jreat IJritain, (United Statt's Senate dociunents, 
 tirst and second sessions Tiiirty-foiirth (Jongress, vol. 1"», Xo. KKi, pi>. 
 1()0, !(».'{;) also, the case of the rniteil States rs. O'Keell'e, in the Suprenu' 
 ('ourt of ihe United Stii.t«'s, (11 Wall., 178;) and th(^ cases of Waters, 
 (t (!. (Ms. It'.p., ;{,n;) li:issi'll, (.') id., rj!>;) Filor rv. United States, (!) 
 Wall., 1.1 ;) also, (Jani|>l)ell's case, (."> C. Cls. Uep., LML';) anil I'rovine's 
 (!ase, (id., ■i'u).) 
 
 On the p:irt of the claimant it was cDntended that, while the claimant 
 was entitled to compensation for the use of his jjroperty under the (Con- 
 stitution of the United States, the Jurisdiction of the (Jouit of Ulaims in 
 the (tase was taken away by the act of Congress of .Fulyt, 18»U, (l.'j Stat 
 at L.,;W1,) citing Filor i-s. ITnited States, (1) Wall., 45.) 
 
 The demurrer was overruled, and an award was subsccpiently made in 
 favor of the claimant for the value of the use and occui>ation, in which 
 all the commissioners joined. 
 
 The case of William II. Lane, No. 0, was a claim for occupation by 
 the United States of a building of the claimant in Mem[)his, in ISO! ; 
 that of Eleanor W. Tuiner, No. M, was a claim for like occupation of 
 a house in New (Jrleans by the United States military authorities; aird 
 that of ICIi/a 1>. Nelson, No. 140, was a claim lor like occupation of a 
 building at Helena., Ark; all said occui)ations being while the res^ject. 
 ive i)laces were permanently held by the United States. Awards were 
 made in favor of the claimant in each case, Mr. Commissioner Urazer 
 dissenting in Nos. 34 and 140. 
 
 e. Claims for pro))erty taken under the abandoned and captured prop- 
 erty act of March 12, 1803, (12 Stat, at L., 820.) 
 
 This act provided in elfect for the turning over of proi)erty captured 
 or seized as abandoned by the military and naval authorities of the 
 United States to agent «, to be a[)i)ointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 for the sale of such property, and the paynunit of the proceeds into the 
 Treasury; and provided that the owner of such property might, within 
 two yeais after the suppression of the '.vbellion, bring suit for the pro. 
 cee<ls in the Court of Claims, and, on proof of his ownership and right 
 to the proceeds, and that he had never given aid or comfort to the rebel- 
 lion, should be entitled to recover the net procei;t!s The act was 
 undoubtedly intended to apply i)articularly to cotton and the other 
 staple products of the Southern States. To such products only it was 
 in practice applied. 
 
 Many claims were brought before the commission tor property, 
 principally cotton, taken under this act. Most of the claims thus 
 brought had beeu prosecuted in the Court of Claims, some of which 
 were still pending in that court ; some were pending on appeal in the 
 
 1 
 
'1 
 
 'V I 
 
 4S 
 
 >V: 
 
 AHKKICAN-HUITISII CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 Hnpromo (!ourt ; in some tlio Court of CliiiiiiH luul fjivcn jiul;4iii«'nt in 
 favor of tlie (ilainiants for the net proceeds, the elainiants now elainiing 
 liere tliat .su<'li amount was less than tlie full value of their j>ropert,v, to 
 which they (tlainu'd themselves entitled; an<l in some Jud{;'ment had 
 ;;(ine a<;ainst the claiu)ant iu the Court of Claims, and no appeal had 
 been taken. In some cases the claimants were domiciled within the in- 
 surre(;tioiuiry States, and in others within the Kritish dominions. In a 
 few eases no suit had been prosecuted in the Court of Claims. The 
 a^ent of the United States interposed demurrers iu several cases, includ- 
 inj; all the different classes above named. 
 
 On the arjjument it was conteiuled tor the United States that the 
 ri{«ht of capture, by a belligerent, of private enemy's jn'operty on land 
 was permitted by the laws of war; that that ri}»ht was specially appli- 
 cable to the case of a }freat staple like cotton, upon wiiich the enemy 
 principally depended for his military and naval supplies, and for his 
 credit and means to carry on the war; that by the abandoned and 
 captured property act of 12th March, 18G;i, the United States had in no 
 respect abamloned or waived this right, bnt that that act constituted 
 merely an act of grac ^ in favor of individuals who might show them- 
 selves personally free from complicity with the rebellion ; that under 
 that act neutral aliens stood upon the same footing with loyal citizens, 
 and were entitled to the same rights given to such citizens by the act, 
 and subject only to the same disabilities ; that the owner of p Merty 
 thus captured within the enemy's country had no right of rec! ^iou 
 against the United States, except that given by the act, and t.. lUat 
 renuMly must be pursued in the form given, and before the tribunal 
 specified in the act. 
 
 ile cited Vattel, book 3,c. 9, §§ 101, IG-'J, 104; Twiss, vol. 2, (war,) pp. 
 122 to 121; Kutherforth, book 2, c. 9, § 10; Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 
 Wall., 404; the United States f.v. Padelford, 9 id., o.'il; the.United States 
 r.v. O'Keeffe, 11 id., 178; 1 Kent's Com., pp. 92, 93. 
 
 On the [»art of Her Majesty's counsel representing the claimants, it 
 was conteiuled — 
 
 1. Tliiit tilt' personal property of tlio inhabitants of tbo insunectionary States 
 w hi'ther eitizciis or aliens, neither by its locality nor by its character as product of the 
 soil, was the lawful subject of capture as prize and booty of war. 
 
 2. That in this respect the article of cotton is not distinguishable from other property. 
 
 3. That the Government of the United States has never claimed or asserted title to 
 such personal i)roperty as prize and booty of war, but, on the contrary, by legislation 
 has iiiii)liedly <lisclaimed such title. 
 
 4. Tliat the property for the destruction or appropriation of which these claimants 
 denuuid indemnity never ceased to le their property, but continued such, notwith- 
 staiidiiif^ the fact of war and the fact of seizure or appropriation by the military 
 authorities of the United States. 
 
 .^>. That t heir rigilit to bo indemnified for such seizure or appropriation doesnot depend 
 in any dej-ree upon any municipal legislation of the United States either recognizing 
 the riglit or providing a remedy complete or partial, bnt rests upon principles of the 
 public law, recognized as well by the United States as by all other civilized nations. 
 
■--% 
 
 acmcnt's i{i:roi{T. 
 
 49 
 
 ;j;nuMit ill 
 cliiiinin^ 
 )pi'rt.v, to 
 iiiciit had 
 >po!il luul 
 in tlio in- 
 ns. In a 
 niH. The 
 s, incliul- 
 
 that the 
 y on hind 
 lly appli- 
 le ononiy 
 d tor his 
 )nod and 
 had in no 
 nstitnted 
 ow thenj- 
 lat under 
 
 citizens, 
 
 • the act, 
 
 J) norty 
 
 Mou 
 
 t.. in at 
 
 tribunal 
 
 war,) pp. 
 
 otton, 2 
 
 Hi States 
 
 nants, it 
 
 ary States 
 act of the 
 
 ' property. 
 3(1 title to 
 egislatioQ 
 
 claiiDaiitH 
 notwith- 
 inilitary 
 
 ot depend 
 
 liogiiiziiii; 
 les of the 
 
 llltiODS. 
 
 (!. Tliiit, tliricforo. till' act of Miircli I'J, l-^il:!. iM'itlwr ;,'iivr any liu'lit \vl:icli tin- i>aiti.'s 
 hail iiiil iM'r.iri- li.v si-tlii'il piiiicipli's of piihlii' law, nor piir|»i)iti'(l to ^ivi' ii ii'iiii'ily 
 
 ( ciisiiiati' Willi that ii«;lit midcr tin- i.nl>li<' law. Tliat ait \n as piiri'i.v a numiclpal ■ 
 
 iiitaHiin', ilirlaliil hy coiisidcratimis of doini'stir iioijcy, 
 
 7. That, liii'ri't'nif, it is whtilly iniiiiati'i ial li> tiii' drtiTiniiialion of tlirsr iiitcniatiniial 
 claiiiis whi'tliir IIuim- pailifs had or had iml a ri'iinily under that Niatiili'. or did or 
 
 did nut avail thrnisi'lvcs of siifh rcnn'dy. Tlii- Conrl of Claims in h'^rn- cxi'ii'ised 
 
 till' fiiiiciioiis oi' fiiHiilt'd till' iliilifs nf tills triliiinal, wliosc i.lili;;atiitiis iiiidi r llir liraty 
 and till' pnldic law ninst In- disrhargi'd according; to its nwn Jnilyini'iit Jiiiil roiis.'ii'iiro 
 in i-asi's ci.niiii;,' witliin the tn-aty. whrtlii'r thr Conrt of Clainis, in I'smitin^' tho 
 act iif l^li'.l, exincisLd or not a wludiy distinct jinisdiction «onf»Tred nimn it l»y that 
 
 Htatnto. 
 
 H. If niidi'r thatstatnti' tin- claimant hasohlaincd a partial indemnity, the rnilcil 
 States can only claim a credit for so miieii of tlie indemnity as tiie parly lias received 
 in that furm. Jn no other way, and to no otiier extent, can the procecilings in the 
 Conrt of Claims all'ect the awards in these cases. 
 
 lie cit*'*! 1 KiMit's Com., 01 ; ^frs. Alcxaiidor's Cotton, L> WiiU., 101 ; 
 United States r.v. Klein, 1.". Wall., V2H; United States rn. Padellord, 
 supra ; Brown vs. United States, 8 f'raiieli, 110; (Irant'scase, (decisions 
 C. CIs., October term, l.SO;i ;) ^^lttel, lumU 3, c. f), § 75 ; c. 7, § 100. 
 
 Tiit^ arjiMiments of the n'spective eoitnsel wen^ Hh>d in tlie eases of 
 James li. ]MeKlliose, No. L'L*."», and of Tiiomas Arkwn^lit, No. .'iOL'. 
 Many other cases were submitted under the same arguments. 
 
 Tiie (!ommission unanimously sustaiind tlie demurrers in the eases in 
 which suit had been broii<;lit in the Court of Chiims, whether still ih'ImI- 
 iiiy- in that court, or on appeal, or previously decided, aiul dismissed 
 those cases. 
 
 In the case of Eli/iibeth Knowles, No. 17'), and other cases in whicli no 
 suit had been brou}i;htin tlie Court of Claims, thecommission (Mr. Coiii- 
 missioner Frazer disseiitiiij;) overruled the demurrers, and took jurisdic- 
 tion of the claims upon their merits. ^Ir. Commissioner Frazer read a 
 written opinion upon the (piestions involved in these cases, a copy of 
 which will be found in the appendix, G. 
 
 2. — Claims for properiy (lUofU'd to hare been irroufjfuJIjj injured or destroyed 
 
 by the forces of the United atates. 
 
 These claims were also numerous, and involved a lar^e variety of ques- 
 tions. They included claims for property injured or destroyed by the 
 bombardment of towns of the enemy, as in the case of Charles Cle- 
 worth. No, 48; and in other ordinary operations of war, such as the 
 passa<;e of armies, the erection of fortitications, as in the case of Trook, 
 administrator, No. 58, &c. Also, claims for property available to 
 the enemy for military i)urpr)ses, or for the prosecution of the war, 
 and purposely destroyed in the enemy's country as a means of weaken- 
 ing the enemy, as in the cases of Samuel H. Uaddon, No. 107, and John 
 Murphy, No. 320. Also, for property incidentally involved in the de- 
 struction of i)ublic stores, works, and means of transportation of the 
 4 H 
 
50 
 
 AAIKRICAX-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION, 
 
 onomy, Msiii f lie cases of John K. Hynie, No. 200; diaries Blaek, No. 128, 
 and A. Iv. .Ale.Millan, No. 2~){). Also, for timber felled in front of forts 
 and batteiii's to j;ive clear ran<;e for the «iniis and (h'[)rlve the enemy of 
 cover, as in the <'ases of Trook, administrator, No. oS, and ol' William 
 I>. iJtioth, No. ll.'>. For property alle!;ed to have been wantonly and 
 without in'ovoeation or military necessity destroyed or injured in the 
 enem.v's eomitry, as in the eiiscs of Anthony Barclay, No. . j ; Godfrey 
 IJariislcy, No. Kill, and in the ("olnmbia (;ases. 
 
 In these (;hiims for destrnetion of property, it may be stated jjenerally 
 that, with very tew e.\<'i'ptions, and tliost^nostly insignificant, no awards 
 were mad(^ a<;aiiist the United States. 
 
 The claims for injuries by bombardment, the ])assaj'e of armies, the 
 cnttinin- of timber to clear away obstructions, the erection of fortitiea- 
 tions, &.ii., in the enemy's country, were all disallowed by the uiiaiii- 
 moiis voice of the commissioners. 
 
 The same may be said of the iiufidental destruction of innocent 
 property involved in the destruction of public stores and works of 
 the enemy. 
 
 In several eases there we^e alle^j^ations of the wanton destruction of 
 properly by rnited States troops, and in some cases Siit'sfactory proof 
 was mad<^ of the liu^t of such destruction by soldiers with(>ut command 
 or authority of tiieir ct)mmandinj^' ollicei's, and in dellance of orders. 
 
 In the case of Anthony Ihirclay, No. r», allegations were made of 
 wanton destruction ol i)roperty, includinji' valuable furniture, china, 
 pi<ttures, and other works of ar^, books, >.^(;. The proof was eontlictinjjf 
 us to whetlier the injuries alle;»ed were committed by soldiers or not; 
 but if committed by soldiers, it was i)lainly not only without authority, 
 but ill direct violation of the ordi-rs of (ieiieral Sherman. In the award 
 Jiiade in favor of -Mr. Ihirclay, I am advised that nothins; was included 
 for juoperty alleged to have been destroyed. 
 
 Several claims were broiiiiht for properly allejjed to have been 
 destroyed by the burniii;^ of Columbia, on the allc.nation tliat that city 
 was wantonly fired b_v the army of (ii'iieial Sherman, either under 
 liis oi'ders or with his consent and permission. A la.'^je amount of tes- 
 timony was taken upon this subject, iiieludinjf that of (leneral Hamp- 
 ton and other coiifc<lerate ofliecis on the part of the claimants, and of 
 (leiierals Sherman, Lojuan, Howard, Woods, and other I'ederal ollicers 
 on (he i>ait of the United States. The claims were all disalloued, all 
 the commissioners agreeing, 
 
 I am atlvised that the commissioners were unanimoua in the cone.Iu 
 sion that the contlajiration which destroyed rolumlua was not to be 
 ascrd)ed to «'ither the intention or default of eithei- the l-Vderal or con 
 fe<lerate ollicers. Tiie commission did »iot pass on theipiestioii whether, 
 ill case the city had been burned by the order or i»ermission of the coin- 
 

 AGENT'8 RErOKT. 
 
 51 
 
 ,Ilfo. 128, 
 t of forts 
 enemy of 
 
 William 
 only iiiul 
 •d ill the 
 
 G oil t ley 
 
 <>(Mn'riilly 
 lO jiwimLs 
 
 •lilies, tlie 
 
 fortifu.'Ji- 
 
 he uiiaiii- 
 
 imioeeiit 
 works of 
 
 iMietion of 
 ory proof 
 eoinmaiul 
 )rders. 
 
 ninde of 
 
 re, (tliiiia, 
 oiitlietiiijjj 
 s or in)t ; 
 
 iitlioiity, 
 lie award 
 
 iueluded 
 
 ive been 
 that eity 
 iM' under 
 lit (»r tes- 
 al ilaiiip- 
 s, and of 
 (d oilicers 
 owed, all 
 
 e eonelu- 
 ot t(» 1)0 
 d or eon 
 whether, 
 the cuiu- 
 
 mandinft- officer, any liability for resultin}? losses would have existed 
 against the United States. 
 
 The claim of TIenry E. and Alfred Cox, ^o. 220, was for a sawmill 
 and its motive-power, machinery, iS:c., destroyed by raidinj? parties from 
 General Sherman's army, nerr "Meridian, Miss., in February, l.S);4. The 
 exi>editioii by which the mill was destroyed was sent out by General 
 Sherman for the express purpose of destro.>iiis the confederate mills, 
 supi)lies, railroads, and means of transportation. 
 
 The i)i'oofs showed that the sawmill in (piestion had been actually 
 employed in the sawin;;- of railroad-ties for the (•onfederate government, 
 and was available for this and similar purposes. 
 
 On the part of the defense it was claimed that the destrucUou was a 
 lawful act of war. 
 
 The claim was unanimously disallowed. 
 
 The case of William Smythe, No. .3;}.'$, was a <;laim for an iron and 
 brass foundry, machine-sliop, and machinery, fixtures, supplies, «&c., 
 for same, destroyed by (ieneral Sherman in Atlanta, after the capture 
 of that city, and l)efore his advance upon Savannah. The establish- 
 ment hatl been employed in the manufacture of shot, shell, and other 
 military supplies foi- the confederate government. 
 
 The claim was unanimously tlisallowed. 
 
 The case of James and IMidiard ^Fartin, Xo. 4.'M, was a claim for the 
 value of the IJritish ship York, wliicii, in January, ISIL', on a voy ^gc in 
 l)allast from Valencia, Spain, to Lc'wistown, Delaware, was alleged to 
 have been driven ashore on the coast of North Carolina, one of the iU' 
 surrectionary States, and, while there strande<l, to have been destroyed 
 by I'liited States cruisers. 
 
 The proofs satisfactorily establishe<l that the vessel was actually 
 wrecki'd without intent of her olli(;crs, and while on a lawful voyages 
 All iiHicer of the United States Navy, believing her to have been irdeii- 
 tioiially beached ft)r tlu' purpose of running in her cargo i'ov the use of 
 the cMemy, ami that thecargo, with the rigging and furiiiturt' of the 
 vessel, was actually available to the rebels, boarded and burned her. 
 
 'J'lie commission made an award lor hci value in favor ot the claim- 
 ants, ill which all Joined. 
 
 The case of James A. Macaulay, No. 2(»0, was a claim for certain cot- 
 ton, the cargo of the steamship lUanche, which was alleged to liavo 
 sailed from the port of Lavaiia, Tex., in June, 18()2, and on her voy- 
 age to Havana to have been pursued by the United States war-vessel 
 jMontgomery, coiiimaiide<l by liieuteiiant Hunter, to haw, run a^nound 
 on the coast of the island of ('aba, and, wliile so aground, to have been 
 boarded by the crew of the -Montgomery, set on lire, and, with her cargo, 
 totally destroyed. 
 
52 
 
 AMKRICAN-BRITISII CLAIMS COMMISSIOX. 
 
 M 
 
 1 ! 
 
 The case was nnanimoiisly disallowed for lack of proof of the mate- 
 rial alleviations in the memorial. 
 
 A large number of claims was brongbt for cotton destroyed by the 
 United States forces at various points in the insurrectionary States. 
 Au)ong these were the cases of Brown & Sharp, No. 33; John Cairns & 
 Co., No. 39, aiKi several others, for cotton destroyed at Camden, S. C; 
 of (leorj^o Collie, No. 4;j8; Chri.stopher Atkinson, No. 380, and others, 
 at Columbia, S. C. ; of Samuel liall lladdon, No. 107, in Screven County, 
 (leorgia; of Alexander Collie, No. 370, at Oxford, Ga. ; of A. K. Mc- 
 ])onald. No. 42; John C. Forbes, No. 300, ami others, in Arkansas and 
 Lo.iisiana ; and various other claims for like alleged destruction at 
 different points. 
 
 In several of these eases the proof was clear and undisputed that the 
 cotton was destroyed under exi)ress orders of the conunanding ollicers, 
 and for the puri)ose of preventing it from falling into the hands of the 
 enemy, aiul of weakening the resources of the enemy. In other cases 
 questions of fact were in dispute, as to the fact of destruction by the 
 United States forces ; as to such destruction, if committed, being by 
 order or authority of any competent oilicer; as to the title of the claim- 
 ants to the cotton alleged to have been destroyed ; and as to whether 
 the cotton, when destroyed, was within the enemy's country. 
 
 The question as to the right of the United States to destroy cotton 
 of pi'ivate owners in the enemy's country was discussed by the counsel 
 of the United States in his arguments filed in the cases of S. If. Haddon 
 No. 107, and of Urowu and Sharp, No. .'i3 ; and to some extent in several 
 other cases. 
 
 On the sanu^ subject arguments were filed by Iler Majesty's counsel 
 and by counsel for the respective clainmnts in the cases of S. II. llad- 
 don. No. 107; r.rown and Sharp, No. 33; David Jacobs, No. 230; 
 IMartha M. Calderwood, No. 300; .John W. Carmalt, No. 89; Wood & 
 Hey worth, No. 103; .hunes IJorron, No. 141, and in some other cases. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was maintained that a belligerent 
 might lawfully in the enemy's country destroy any property, public or 
 private, the possession or control of which might in any degree contrib- 
 ute to sustain the enemy and increase his ability to carry on the war. 
 That the occasion for such destruction and its extent must always be 
 left solely to the discretion of the invading belligerent, who is of nect's- 
 sity the sole jiulge as to the recpiirements of his military position, and 
 of the necessity or propriety of the destruction of property, and of the 
 extent to whii^h such destruction shall be carried. That the actual own- 
 ership of such property within the enemy's country by the subjects of a 
 neutral power, whether domiciled within the enemy's country or not, 
 did not relieve such property from its liability to such destruction. 
 That cotton in the insurrectionary States was peculiarly and eminently 
 a legitinuite subject for such destruction, from its relation to the enemy's 
 
 .(if 
 
 ■.. >A 
 
 'it 
 
agent's RErORT. 
 
 53 
 
 be mate- 
 
 d by the 
 y Stiites. 
 Uairns «& 
 311, S. C; 
 [1 others, 
 
 I County, 
 . K. Mo- 
 ll sas and 
 ictiou at 
 
 [ that tlie 
 
 ollicers, 
 
 Is of the 
 
 ler cases 
 
 II by the 
 jehig by 
 he (ihiim- 
 
 whether 
 
 )y cotton 
 
 counsel 
 
 Haddon 
 
 11 several 
 
 s counsel 
 II. Ilad- 
 S\). 236; 
 ^Vood & 
 cases. 
 
 ijjerent 
 ublic or 
 coiitrib- 
 the war. 
 ways be 
 >f lu'ces- 
 ioii, and 
 II of the 
 lal own- 
 .'cts of a 
 
 or not, 
 ruction, 
 liiiently 
 enemy's 
 
 pivernmont, as the {?reat staple from wliich were derived the principal 
 means of that jjovernment for the carrying on of tlie war, which was the 
 principal basis of its credit, tiie source of its military and naval suppUes, 
 and on which it relied to maintain its indei)endent existence and to 
 carry on the war against the United States. That the control of this 
 stai>U* as to i)roduction, sale, and exportation, had been, to a large 
 extent, assumed by that government. That by the laws, military orders, 
 and ])ractice of the Confederate States and their authorities, the de- 
 struction of cotton, whenever likely to fall into the hands of their ene- 
 mies, was enjoined and jiracticed, and that this practice of the confed- 
 erate government and its oflicers had received the express and formal 
 api)roval of the British government as a legitimate practice under the 
 laws of war. 
 
 Proofs we.e made in the case of Wood and ITeyworth, Mo. 103, (proofs 
 for defense, pp. H), 20, 24, 37 to 47, 51 to 0.'),) of the statutes of the 
 confederate government in regard to their control of this staple, and 
 in regard to its d('stru(!tion when necessary to prevent its falling into 
 the liands of the enemy ; of the practi(!e of the confederate govern- 
 ment in confrolling its production, sale, and exi)ortation ; of the acts oT 
 its president ami other executive and administrative o(Ti(!ers in this re- 
 gard, and of tlie military orders and jnactice under the same for its 
 destruction when exposed to capture by the enemy. Other proofs in 
 regard to this pra('ti(!e of destruction by the (ionfcderates were made 
 in the cases of James Cumining, No. 04; A. It. ^McDonald, Xo. 42, and 
 various other cases. 
 
 The counsel for the United States, in his mgiiments, cited the letter 
 from Earl Kussell to Lord Lyons of 31 st May, 1802, from the Ibitish 
 JJliie Hook n^lating to the United ics, 1803, vol. 2, p. ;).3, in which 
 his lordship said : 
 
 ifr. Sowiuil, ill liin conversation with your loitlsliiii. rcpi'i !,.|i in your (lis)iutcli ul' tlie 
 ICth instant, appearetl to attribnte blame to thci conftMlmurt's t'orfl-^stroyin;; cotton ind 
 tobiuco in jilact's whicli tlicy t'vaciiiitc^ on tho approach of thi i'lMJcral fori ix. Hut it 
 appeals to be uiirea.sonalile to inai<e this a matter of bhii'ie to thiMii, fur tiiey coiilil not 
 bo expected to leave siieli artii les in warehouses to beeomo prize of \ViW. anil ti> l.r sold 
 for the profit of the Federal (iovermneiit, whieli would iipjily the pr<i< . .-ds to the piu- 
 chase of arms to be used a>;ainst the .South. 
 
 He cited also Yattel, (Am. ed. of ISOl,) pp. 304 to 370, §§ 101 to 17:5 ; 
 the case of Mrs. Alexander's cotton in the Supreme Court of flu Ignited 
 States, (2 Wall., 404, 420;) and the opinion of Sir Hugh C lii and Mr. 
 lleilly, given in ^NLirch, 18(5."), on the application of the Canadian gov- 
 ernment, and published in the " Saint Albans Kald," compiled by L. N. 
 Kenjainin, Montreal, ISC"), page 470, as follows: 
 
 Thonirh in the condiiet of war on land the capture by the ollieers and soldiers of one 
 belli;ferent of the private property of subjects of the other bellijjerent is not often in 
 ordinary crises avowedly practiced, it is yet le}j[itiniate. 
 
 Til the arguments filed by Her Majesty's <!ounsel in the cases of Brown 
 and Sharp, Xo. 33, and Samuel IF. lladdon. No. 107, it was maintained 
 
54 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 that, by tlic modern law of war and tlic practice of civilized nations 
 under it, i>rivato i)roi)erty <)f non-combatants on land is exempt from 
 seizure, contlscation, or d('stru(!tion, and that this juinciple was fully 
 recoyni/ed, in theory ar least, by the United States in the exercise of 
 their belli}:ferent rights in the late civil war; that the article of C(>tton» 
 the pioperty of non-combatants, was no exc<*ption to this general prin- 
 ciple, this in fact haviny; constituted the great mass of the proi)erty 
 the proceeds of which were allowe<l to i»e recovered in the Court of 
 Claims; that as to non-combatant citizens tiie United States recognized 
 the rule of the exemittion ol' their private property from capture ar.d de- 
 struction ; and that as to neutral aliens, )eaceably residing in the United 
 States, u])()n the faith of treaties of amity and commerce, at least an 
 e<jually fav(»rable doctrine must be applied; that if, in any case, the 
 ca|)ture or destruction of such property became a militar}- necessity, 
 such capture or destruction was accompanied by liability to compensa- 
 tion. 
 
 Her IMajest.v's counsel cited the case of the United States rn. Klein, 
 in the Supreme Court of the Ignited States, (13 Wall., 128;) ;.' >, the 
 case of iMitchell rs. Harmony, in the same court, (l.'J How., 115;) also, 
 the case of W. S. (Irant r,s T'liited States, (I C. Cls., 41 ;) also, Urown 
 rs. United States, (8 Cran(di, 110 ;) also, Lawrentie's Wheaton, Part IV, c. 
 2, pp. 58(5 to OLMi, (KJ.");;, 04(»« ; Ilalleck, p. 540, ^ 12; Calvo., §§ 4;J4, 430, 
 443, 444, 450 ; Vattel, pp. 308-9, § 173. 
 
 All the claims for cotton destroyed in tl;e enemy's country, with a 
 single exception, (that of A. 11. ^[cDoindd, No. 42,) were disalloWuHl by 
 the unanimous voice of the commissioners. 
 
 ]\Ir. Commissioner Frazer"s\ iews ni)on the questions involved in these 
 cases are embraced in the opinions given by him in Nos. 41 and 225j 
 lieretofore lelerred to, and to be found in the appendix, F and G. 
 
 In the case of A. It. McDonald, Xos. 42 and 334, the commission n)ade 
 an award in f;!vor of the clainnmt, Mr. Commissioner Frazerdis'jentinir. 
 In that case the cotton was allegetl to have b( 
 
 pui 
 
 i>y 
 
 
 
 
 i;JH 
 
 ^5 
 
 claimant princii)ally in Ashley County, Arkansas, under permits issued 
 by the ])roper ollicers of the United States Treasury, under the statutes 
 regulating trade in the insurrectionary States, and the regulations of 
 the Secretary of the Treasury nnulc pursuant to said statutes, and to 
 have been destroyed in the same region by United States forces under 
 the command of (leneral Osband, in February, 1805. The.se statutes 
 and regulations only authorized trade in the insurrectionary States 
 within the lines of military occupancy of the United States forces; 
 and it was contended on the part of the claimants that the issuing of 
 such permits by the Treasury ollicers was coni rolling evidence tliat the 
 region covered by the i>ermits, and within whicli the cotton was alleged 
 to have been i»urchased and destroyed, was a( nially within the military 
 lines of the United States. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was claimed that the evidence A 
 conclusively showed that ut the time of the issuing of the pernnts in 
 
AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 55 
 
 (juestioii, and of the alleged purcliases iiiulor the same, as well as 
 at Uie tliue of the alleged destnu^tion, the region where the cotton 
 was sitnated was entiiely outside the lines of niilitary occupancy of the 
 United States, aiul within the control, civil and military, of tiu' confed- 
 <»rate government ; that the permits in (juestion were irregularly and 
 unlawfully issued ; that they gave no authority to the claimant to i)ur- 
 ciiase within the district in (piestion ; that the cotton was purchasi'd, if 
 tt all, within the enemy's country, and under collusive arrangements 
 between the claimant and the confederate cotton bureau ; that the 
 permit.,, "ven if valid when i»*sued, allorded no protection to the cotton 
 when actually within the enemy's lines at the time of its destruction; 
 that tlie claimant, by his uidawful dealings with the (Miemy, had for- 
 feitetl any possible right which he might have had under his alleged 
 permits, and that the claim was, to a large extent, fraudulent, both as 
 to the alleged purchase and destruction. 
 
 Tiie entire claim of this claimant amounted, including interest, to over 
 ><'>,0'"M>'*'>- 'J"''^ award was for the sum of !«jI'.)7,llM>, including interest. 
 1 am advised tliat, in the making of this award, the majority of the com- 
 mission did not intend to depart from the i)rinciple Leld by them in the 
 otiier claims for c. tton destroyed ; but that they regarded the permits 
 as controlling evidence that the region where the cotton was situated 
 was within the lines of Federal occupancy. 
 
 The case of John Turner, No. 44, included a claim for a dwelling- 
 housi: of the claimant, situated near the field of Fair Oaks, in Virginia, 
 alleged to have been for several weeks occu|)ied as a hosi)ital by the 
 army of (Jeneral MeCMellan, in the spring of ISflL*. It was alleged by 
 the claimant that large stores of medicines and hosi)ital su{)plies had 
 accumulated in this house, and that upon the retreat of (leneral Mc- 
 Clellan's army, it being impossible to save the stores so accumulated, 
 the dwelling-house was burned, with its contents, by the Federal officers, 
 in order to prevent these stores from falling into the hands of the enemy. 
 The proofs substantially sust rued these allegations. 
 
 An award was made in favor of the claimaiit, in which I am advised 
 that the majority (,f the comnii^sion included an allowance in respect of 
 the destruction of the house in questu)n. Mr. Commissioner Frazer 
 joined in the award ; but in his comi»utation of aim)unt included noth- 
 ing for the house. In no otlu'r case was any award made for the nu*re 
 destruction of buildings within the insurrectionary territory not per- 
 manently reclaimed to the possession of the United States; and this 
 award was therefore an excei»tional one, and not within the principle by 
 which the commission was governed in other cases. 
 
 The cases of A. R. McDomdd, Xos. 42 and ;{;]4 ; of John Turner, No. 
 44; an<l of J. •S: 1{. Miirfjn, No. f.'U, were the oidy cases in which 
 awards were made for the mere destruction of property within the in- 
 surrectionary States. 
 
56 
 
 AMKRICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSIOX. 
 
 3. — Clahns for properly alleged to have been destroyed by the rebels. 
 
 In tlie case of John 11. Ilanna, Xo. 2, the nu'inoiial allejjcd in otfcct 
 that tlic chiiinant wa.s the owner of SI!) baU's of cotton, sitnated wiUiiu 
 the rebel States of Louisiana and Mississippi, and that "without fault 
 of petitioner, aj^fainst his consent, aiul by force and arms, said cotton 
 was (U'stroyed by rebels in arnjs against the (loverninen t of tlie Unittd 
 States juior to the year 18({;{." IJy tlie scheduk\s annexed to his me- 
 morial and made a i)artof the same, it appeared that the cotton in ques- 
 tion was destroyed by orders of the authorities of the Confederate 
 States and of the rebel State of Louisiana, for the purpose of preventing 
 the same from f '^'ing into the haiuls of the Federal forces. 
 
 A demurrer to t ;e memorial was interposed ou behalf of the United 
 States. 
 
 On the argument of the demurrer it was contended by Her ^faj- 
 esty's couns<'l, on behalf of the dainmnt, timt the a(;ts of destru(^tiou 
 alleged in the nu'morial api)earing to have been deliberately committed 
 under the orders of the commander of the forces of the Confederate 
 States, and with the comnu'rent authority of the governor of the State 
 of Louisiana and commander of tiie trooi)s of that State, reclamation 
 must lie on behalf of the British government, in the interest of the claim- 
 ant as a subject of that government, against the United States as rep- 
 resenting and iiuiluding the Stati; of Louisiana, as well as all tlie other 
 States Ibrming the so-called Confederiite States ; that the persons en- 
 gaged in these acts of destruction were uot liable, either civilly or crimi- 
 nally, either for reparat'on or [)unishment in respe(!t of those acts, they 
 having been committed in the course of militarj- operations under the 
 authority of the existing government, whether lawfid or usur[»ed. 
 
 That for the wrongful acts of the several States in respect to foreign 
 nations or their subjects, reclamation could be made oidy against the 
 United States, to the Government of which, by its Constitution, was re- 
 served the i)ower of maki'ig treaties, declaring war, ami making pea(!e, 
 and all internatiomd powers generally, tlu^ same being denied to the 
 individual States; that no foreign nation could negotiate with or nuike 
 demand upon individual States in respect of silch acts, but could deal 
 only with the Covernment of the United States ; that in case of wrongs 
 comnntted by any State upon fon'ign nations, in regard to which that 
 State, if wholly iiulependent ami not a member of the Federal Union, 
 would be liable to reclamation, and to be called to account in the 
 mode jnacticed between nations — by treaty or by Mar — these renu'dies 
 against such State being denied to foreign powers by the Constitution 
 of the United Stater, the liability for reparation devolved upon the 
 United States, and the Federal (Jovernment must be In^ld to answer as 
 well for tlu^ a(!ts of the authorities of its several constituent States as 
 for those of the Federal (lovernment. 
 
 That the so-called secession of the State of Louisiana and the other 
 States forming the so-called Confederate States did not extinguish or 
 
 I 
 
 ^ 
 
AGENT 8 REPOKT. 
 
 57 
 
 siisiKMid the liabilitj- of tlie United States for wrongrul acts coiimiitted 
 by said States. 
 
 That by tlie treaties of 1704, 1815, and 1827, the United Slates had 
 stip'dated with (Jreat llritain for the jnotection of her subjects in the 
 Stf.teof Lonisiana, as well as in all other territory of the Cnited States; 
 that the United States not having- allowed the claim of Louisiana to 
 be released from her constitutional obligations and restrictions, bnt 
 having hehl her to her constitutional obligations, and having insisted 
 that their ])olitical relations with foreign powers were in no wise affected 
 by the insurrection in the Southern States, and that the (lovernment 
 of the United States was rightfully supreme in Louisiana and the other 
 States ill rebellion, and having finally maintained its authority over 
 those States, its liability to Great Britain for violation of tiiese treaties 
 by those respective States remaiMcd precisely as if there had been no 
 insurrection or civil war. 
 
 Her Majesty's counsel further conteided that, as a principle of inter- 
 national law, if the rightful governiiu'iit of a country be displaced and 
 the usuri)ing government be(;omes liable for wrongs done, such liability 
 remains, and devolves on the rightful government when restored ; that 
 this principle equally applied when the usuvpation was only partial ; 
 that the restored and loyal government of Louisiana was liable for 
 wrongs done by the insurrectionary govornment of the sameSti;<^e; and 
 that it was only by the provisions of the Cmistitution of the United 
 States that the State of Louisiana was ])revented from being coini)elled 
 to discharge that liability toward foreign governments, and that on 
 this ground the Government of the United States must be held respon- 
 sible for the acts of the State of Louisiana. 
 
 lEe cited in suj)port of these pro])ositions the treaties of 18ir> and 
 1827 between thb United States and Great Britain, (8 Stat, at L., ]). 228, 
 art. 1 ; id., 3(11, art. 1 ;) Phillimore, vol. 1, pp. 30, 94, 139; Wheaton, p. 
 77; Constitution of the United States, art. 1, sec. 10; Works of Daniel 
 "Webster, vol. 3, p. .321 ; id., vol. (5, pp. -09, 2.~>3, 2(l.". ; U. S. Att. (Jen. Op., 
 vol. 1, p. 392; Tlie United States vs. Palmer, 3 Wheat., Sup. Ct. R., 
 210; The Collector r.s'. Day, 11 id., 113, 124 to 120; The Prize Cases, 2 
 lilack, 035 ; the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of 
 August 9, 1842, (8 Stat, at L., 575, art. 5 ;) and the acts of Congress of 
 December 22, 1SG9, (10 Stat, at L., 59, 00,) and of April 20, 1871, (17 
 id., 13 to 1.5.) 
 
 The argument on behalf of the United States was summed up as 
 
 follows : 
 
 First. That, whiitovcr may 1»o tlio relations of tho separate. States of tlio Union to 
 tlie Government of the Uniteil States, it is manifest that no responsil>iIity ean attaeh 
 to the United States for tlie destrnotion of tli(> claimant's property nndei' cohir of the 
 authority of the State of T.onisiana, 1>('(:mis(> its desti'tietion was not aiithorizfd l>y any 
 otHeials representinj? or anthorized to repre.sont or act for the State of Louisiana under 
 the Constitntimi and hiws of the United States. There ean he no h'^^.tinuite ollieers of 
 a State to constitute its government, except such us have taken au oath to support tho 
 
w 
 
 I I 
 
 58 
 
 AMKKICAN-BUITI.SH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 f ' 
 
 Coi'Htitiitioiiof tlioUnit(Ml Statt's. All oUuth are iihiiii)i'1'.s iiml protLMidors. But, further, 
 a Stati' of tilt' Union lias no political cxistt-ncti \vlii<'li can bo or han hctsu rt'cojfniz.'d l>y 
 (iifat Britain, cxct'iit as a jiart of tlio Ijiitctl States, in subordination to tius National 
 GovoriinHMit. Tlio robclH, who, by usurpation, undortotdi to act for tho Statu of Lou- 
 isiana, dticlai'fd their action to be in beliaif of thu Statu, which they claimed as a com- 
 ponent part of another and lioslile nation. 
 
 Secondly. The destruction of the claimant's cotton was done under the ordtsr of the 
 commander of a military force eui^a^^ed in hostilities aj;ainst the United States, and 
 whose acts (Jreat Britain had reco]ijni/ed as those of a lawful belli;;<utmt, liavin;; all 
 the rifjhts of war aj^ainst the United States that any foreif^n invader could have had. 
 The men ]>r(»fessin;i to act as the local anthoriti«!s, inconcnrrinn in the order ol(h'strno- 
 tiou acted as the assistants and allies of the hostile and belli<r(<rent power, and sub- 
 ject to its control. It is as ijbsnrd to hold the United States resitonsibh! in tlie (sase of 
 Ifanna as it would be to Imlil i''r;in('e responsible for t\w destruction of tin; ])ropi'rty of 
 a British subject in the ]»art of France held by the (Jerman armies in the late war, nn 
 the fjround that a French ollicial, at the head of some (irrDiidixscminl or comminif, mii;lit 
 have joined in the ordt;r of the Gernuin forces for its beiuij done, he having been put in 
 oHice or retained there by the (Jcrman forces for the very i)urposo, and havinjf lirst 
 renounced hisalleyianc*! to France and taken an oath of allu}j[iance to Germany. 
 
 Tliecoiuiuissiou iinaniuiou.sly sustained the deiniirier iu the following 
 award : 
 
 The claim is made for the loss sustained by the destruction of cotton belonging;; to 
 th(! claimant by men who are thiscribed by the claimant as rebijls in arms aj^ainst tho 
 Government of the United States. 
 
 Tho commissioners are of opinion that tho United .States cannot be htdd liable for 
 injuries caused by the acts of rebels over whom they could exercise no control, and 
 which acts they had no power to prtsvent. 
 
 L'pou this •jnmnd, and without j;iviu;f any opinion upon tho other points raiseil iu 
 the case, which will be considered hereafter in other cases, the claim of John Holmes 
 llanna is, therefore, disallowed. 
 
 Mr. Coininissiouer Frazer read an opinion, whieh will be found iu the 
 appendix, U. 
 
 This was among the earliest of the decisions of the commission, and 
 it is understood that iu consetiueuce of it a large number of claims of 
 similar character awaiting presentation were never presented to the 
 commission. 
 
 The cases of Liinrie, Son & Co., No. 321 ; Samuel Irviu & Co., No. 
 .322, and Valentine O'Brien OX'ounor, No. 404, likewise arose out of 
 property destroyed by the rebels; but in each of them it was attempted 
 on the part of the claimants to take tho case out of the decision iu 
 Ilan nil's case. 
 
 In «ach of the cases it was alleged that the nhiimant was the owner of 
 tobacco stored in the State of Virginia at the breaking out of the re- 
 bellion; that, early in tho year 18(51, the ports of Virginia were 
 blockaded under the proclamation of the President of the United Stiites, 
 and before the claimants coidd remove their proi)erty by lainl, the 
 Congress of the United States, by act of 13th June, 1801, prohibited 
 the transi)ortatiou of merchandise from Virginia into the loyal States, 
 except uiuler license ami permission of the President, aiul iu pursuance 
 of rules to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury ; and that 
 
aoknt's report. 
 
 59 
 
 and 
 
 undor the rules preserilied tlie eliiimiiuts were unaMe to remove the 
 tobacco. In tln' cases of Laurie, Son «& Co. and Irvin & Co. it was 
 allejjed tliat the tobacco remained stored in I'iehmond until the, 
 buiniiijijj of that city by the rebels on the .'id April, l.S(».~>. In the case 
 of O'Connor it was further alle^'ed that in April, 1<S(J."), claiiinmt si'ut a 
 vessel from Ireland destined for Kichinond, for the purpose of earryin<; 
 away his tobacco, which vessel arrived at ITami)ton IJoads in .Tune, 
 IS(ir), but was warned olf by a j)ublic armed vessel of the United States 
 and compelled to return to l)ul)lin without the tobac(!o. In this <;ii,se it 
 vas further allejjed that a part of the tobacco was destroyed by the 
 conHajiiation kindled by order of the (H)nfederate authorities on the .'hi 
 April, l.Sii,") ; that another portion was destroyed by an ac(!idental tiro 
 in .March, 18(»;{, but whi(!h oc(!urred in cons(Mpien(!e of the disturbed 
 condition of atfairs then existing in Ricjhmond; that another portion 
 Avas seized for taxes levied by the confederate gfovernment, and 
 another i»ortion used and destroyed by the anthorities oi the Confeder- 
 ate States for experimental purposes; and it was alle;;ed that all these 
 losses of' Mr. O'Connor weve solely in conse<iuence of the failure of the 
 Unite<l States to maintain and enforce their authority in the State of 
 Virginia, and to suppress the civil and military disorders then existing 
 there. 
 
 A demurrer was interposed on behalf of the United States in each of 
 the three cases. 
 
 Her Majesty's counsel fded an argument in Nos. 321 and 322, iu 
 which he contended that the memorials showed a case when^, by the 
 acts of the United States, the claimants were prevented from removing 
 their tobacco from the seat of war, where it was exposed to danger; and 
 that but for such prohibition they would have removed and saved it ; 
 but that they were compelled to leave it in the hostile country, where it 
 ultimately perished from one of the tlangers incident to the war; that 
 the acts of the United States alleged in the memorial, by winch the 
 claimants were prevented from removing their tobacco, were not lawful 
 acts under international law. 
 
 That, by the statute of 13th July, ISGl, (12 Stat, at L.,) commercial 
 intercourse between the States in rebellion and the loyal States was 
 l)rohibited, subject only to the license and permission of the Tresident 
 " in such articles, and for such time and by such persons as he in his 
 discretion may think most conducive to the |Miblic interest, and such 
 intercourse, so far as by him licensed, shall be conducted and carried on 
 oidy in pursuance of rules ami regulations prescribed by the Secretary 
 of the Treasury ;" that by the regulations issued by the Secretary of 
 the Treasury under this act, a tax was iniposed upon such permits, and 
 a special tax upon property to be brought out under them, and it was 
 provided that such permits should only be granted to loyal citizens of 
 the United States. 
 
 That this act and the subsequent legislation of the United Staces did 
 
60 
 
 AMERICAN-nRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 not i>rovi(lo for blockade or noii-intprconrso Jure helli, but were acta 
 re}?nlatiii,i;" iiitercoiirHo by nmiiicipal .statute bet\v<'('ii ditlcrent sections 
 of tlie territory of the United States ; tliat these statutes \v<>rk«Ml in- 
 justice to the chiiniaiits, and deprived them of priviU'ges to which they 
 were entitkHl by the tn^aty between the United States and Great Uritain ; 
 tliat the h)S8 of the prope. ,,/ in question was caused by theni, and there- 
 fore was a k'gitimate subject of international reclamation before the 
 conunission. 
 
 That, considering the prohibition in the light of a belligerent act, the 
 United States were bound, in analogy to maritime blockade, to allow a 
 reasonable time for the claimants to bring out their property; and, 
 in further analogy to the law of nniritime blockade, that, as a belliger- 
 ent cannot blockade a port against neutrals while he allows his own or his 
 enemy's nnMcliant- vessels privilege of ingress and egress for the i)urposes 
 of trade, the United States cannot rightfully permit their own citizens 
 to trade with the insurgents under permits, while prohibiting trade to 
 neutral aliens and others without permits. 
 
 lie cited the letter of ^Ir. Cass, Secretary of State, to Mc Mason, 
 United States minister to France, in June, 185!), reported in Dana's 
 Wheaton, G72, n. ; 1 Kent's Com., 1M\', The drey Jacket, 5 Wall., ;M2; 
 The William Jiagaley, id., 408 ; The United States vn. Lane, 8 Wall., L85 ; 
 The Francisca, 10 Moore's P. C. R., 87 ; The Ouachita Cotton, Wall., 
 531 ; ^Mitchell r.s. Harmony, l.J llow., llo. 
 
 The commission unanimously, and witiiout hearing argument for the 
 United States, sustained the respective demurrers, and disallowed the 
 claims. 
 
 In the case of James Stewart, ^o. 339, it was alleged that the claim- 
 ant, having purchased certain cotton situated upon the Mississippi 
 Kiver, at Dead Man's Bend, below Natchez, sent a steamboat to remove 
 the cotton, but that the steamboat was improperly forbidden to land by 
 the captain of a gun-boat then cruising opposite the place where the cot- 
 ton was stored : that the claimant was thus prevented from removing 
 his cotton, which was soon afterward burned by rebel scouts. 
 
 Various questions of fact arose in this case as to the title of the claim- 
 ant ; but it was maintained on the part of the United States that, upon 
 the facts a'leged, no reclamation could lie against the United States ; 
 that the discretion of the commanding officer of the gun-boat as to per. 
 mitting or not permitting vessels to land, even for the removal of prop- 
 erty for which permits from the civil authorities were held, was abso- 
 lute; and that the alleged act of the officer, in prohibiting the steam- 
 boat from ajjproaching the land and removing the property, was within 
 the scope of his authority, and in the exercise of his duty ; that the 
 subsequent destruction of the property by the rebels was not a neces- 
 sary or natural consequence of any wrongful act of the United States or 
 any officer of the United States, ami that no liability existed against 
 the United States in respect of the transaction. 
 
 The claim was disallowed, all the commissioners agreeing. 
 
T 
 
 aoknt's heport. 
 
 Gl 
 
 4.— Claims 'for <h(mi((j<s for ((llq/cd ivroiKj/ul ttrrvst and unprinonmcnt. 
 
 Tliose claiins were one IiiiiidrtMl in immlu'r, and tlie total nnioinit of 
 (laiiia^-csclaiiiuMl, in all, was ni-arly ><l(),(KH),(><><>.('Xcliisivo of intnvst ; or, 
 adding; interest at the rate allowed by the eonirnission, say !?l(i,(10(»,(MU). 
 
 In thirty-tonr of the, cases awards were made in favor of the claimants 
 a^-ainst the United States, in all amonntinf*- to $l(;7,1lll. In sixty-fonr 
 cases these claims were disallowed; one case was <lismissed without 
 prejndice for inipertinent and scandalous lansua<»e used in the memorial, 
 an«l one was withdrawn by Her Majesty's ay:ent by leave of the commis- 
 sion. 
 
 The (jnestion early arose before the commission whether in case of 
 death prior to the presentation of the claim of the party a^-ainst whose 
 person the wroii^d'ul acts were alle<>ed to have been (committed, the claim 
 for such injuries was to b»> considered as surviving: to the personal rep- 
 resentatives. This (piestion was raised by demurrer interposed on behalf 
 of the United States, in tln^ cases »)f Edward McUu;;h, Xo. 3.j7 ; Eliza- 
 beth Sherman, No. 359 ; and Elizabeth IJrain, No. 447. 
 
 In the case of Mrs. Sherman, No. 3.")!), all connection between tlie 
 injuries alleged and the death of the intestate was disclaimed by the 
 memorial. 
 
 In the cases of Mrs. r>rain. No. 447, and of IMcIIugh, No. 3.")7, there 
 were allegations that the injuries complained of caused or contributed 
 to cause the death of the intestate; but there was no allegation of any 
 local statute allowing damages in favor of jiersonal representatives for 
 a wrongful injury causing death. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was claimed that, as by the com- 
 mon law both of Great IJritain and of the United States, claims for 
 injuries to the person did not survive to the personal representatives, 
 such claims were not to be considered as within the submission by arti* 
 cle 12. That the claims which by that article were submitteil ccndd not 
 be taken to comprehend claims of a character not recognized by the 
 municipal laws of either of the countries parties to the treaty. 
 
 Her Majesty's counsel contended that the munici[>al laws of the two 
 countries were not to be taken as controlling the rights of claimants iu 
 this regard ; that claims for injuries to the person, whether such injuries 
 caused death or not, were, in the di[)lomatic intercourse of civilized 
 nations, treated as a proper subject ol" interuiitional redamaiion iu 
 behalf of the personal representatives of the person injured aifer his 
 death. lie cited the practice of the commissions under the conventioa 
 between the United States and New Granada, of 10th Septembei-, 18."37, 
 (12 Stat, at L., 98,"),) and under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, of L*d 
 February, 1848, between the United States and Mexico, (9 Stat, at L., 
 933, art. 13.) 
 
 In the case of McHugh, No. 357, where the deceased died unmarried 
 and leaving only callateral relatives, not dependeut on bim for sui»port, 
 
62 
 
 AMKUirAN-ninrisii tlaims commission. 
 
 entitled to itiliorit, tliu coiiiinisMioii uiianitnou.sly sti.staitKMl'the demurror 
 and disiillowud the (tlaiin. 
 
 Ill tlic caHi's of Mrs. Slicrman, No. .'{r»0, and ^Nlrs. Brain, Xo. 147, in 
 l)(»tli wliii'h t'as«'s till' dtM'«'as('d left a widow and minor cliiMrt'ii, the 
 coiiiinissioii, Mr. Coiiiinissioiu'r Frjizcr disscntiiiji', ovcrnilcd tlKMlcinnr- 
 ivrs. .Mr. ('oiiiinis.sioiu'r I'^ra/cr read an ((pinion tor sustaining' tlu> dciniir- 
 ri'is in each of Ww, thn'O cases, whii^h will lie found in the apiiendix, 1. 
 
 It may beachled that on liiial hearin;;' on the merits tlu^ elaiin of Mfh. 
 Sherman was niianiiiionsly disallowed; and though an award was made 
 (Mr. Commissioner I'ra/er disseiitinj;) in favor of Mrs. Ilraiii on account 
 of property taken from her husband, that award included no damaj^cs 
 for imprisonment. 
 
 Tin' followinjj cases are seU»cted as (dass cases illiistratin^' the hold- 
 inin's of the commission u[>on the various (piestions involved in these 
 claims. 
 
 ill the case of Kriu'st A\'. ''ratt, No. 0, it was allejjed that the claimant 
 arrived in Xew VorU on a IJritish mail-steamer from Nassau, on the 
 iiijiht of the 17th March, ISO") ; that before leavin<>' the vessel ho was 
 arrested by order of (Jeiieral IJix, then in command of the United States 
 forces in and around New York, liis lu{;j;a{{e and papers seandied, and 
 lie himself committed to i)risoii, where In^ was detained until the li-lith 
 June followiiifj, a period of one hundred and seven days, when ho was 
 discharged without trial. 
 
 That he had received at Nassau, from the United States consul there, 
 an endorsement upon his discharfjo from the steamship City of Kich- 
 nioiid, of wliicli he had been tirst mate, certifying that he was entitled 
 to jiass to the United States as a British suUjc(!t, which certifhiato had 
 been given to him by the consul with the assurance that it had all the 
 ett'ect of a regular passport. 
 
 It ain>eared that in Ot'tober, 18fiD, ho had been about to commence 
 suit against General Dix: toreitover damages for his false iminisonment, 
 and his counsel having informed the Se<;retary of State of the United 
 States of his intention to bring such suit, the Secretary, by letter to his 
 counsel in answer, suggested whether it was not expedient to "await 
 tln! result of the delilieration of this (the United States) (Jovernment 
 and that of (Jreat Britain ni)on a proposition for the establishment or 
 adjudication, among other things, of claims like that of 3Ir. Pratt ;" 
 and the claimant averred that in conformity with this suggestion he 
 omitted to bring his suit against General Dix. 
 
 The City of liichmond, of which vessel the claimant had been first 
 mate, had been engaged in January, 18(i5, in carrying crew, arms, and 
 ammiinitiou from Loudon to the rebel cruiser Stonewall, which received 
 substantially ber entire crew and armament of small-arms and ammuni- 
 tion by that means. On parting with the Stonewall, the City of Rich- 
 mond steamed to Bermuda, and the'uce to Nassau, where her otUuers and 
 
 
' domurror 
 
 Xo. 447, iti 
 ililrt'ii, the 
 Im^ (Iciniii- 
 tlic demur- 
 M)i'ii(Iix, 1. 
 Ill ol' Mrs. 
 was inado 
 »ii account 
 > (lainaifcs 
 
 the liold- 
 ill these 
 
 ^ chnniaiit 
 II, on the 
 el he was 
 ed States 
 i'lied, and 
 the 25th 
 II lie was 
 
 snl tliere, 
 ' of Kich- 
 s entitled 
 ic-ate had 
 id all the 
 
 luninence 
 isoninent, 
 le United 
 ter to his 
 o "await 
 eminent 
 liinent or 
 . Pratt;" 
 ^stiou he 
 
 eeii first 
 fins, and 
 received 
 ammuni- 
 of Ricb- 
 cers and 
 
 AHKNT's IJKrORT. 
 
 (53 
 
 
 men were dis('hai';j«Ml, the claimant immediately proceedini^to New Yinic, 
 as above stated. 
 
 The (ilaimant alle,ii:ed in his memorial, however, thai ho shipped upon 
 the City of KMchmoiid in <i:iu»\ faith lor an ordiiiiiry voya;;(' to tlie West 
 Indies, and without iufonuatiou or suspici(ui that ''her voya;^e was in 
 any way coune('te<l with eitlier of the lielli,i;ereu( parties iu the Tiiited 
 States,'' and that, on llndiii;^' her eiii,'ay'ed iu supplyiiijj; the Stonewall, 
 he had protested to his capiaiu, who paid iio attention to his i)rot«'st, 
 and re(|uired him to obey orders on pain of arrest i\u' mutiny. The fact 
 of the claimant's haviu;^ bcM'ii thus ('n;;,ii;;t'd on the City of liichmond 
 was reported to (leneral I)ix. ami this, in i'onuectiou with his arrival in 
 New York Irom Nassau, constituted the yrounds of his arrest by (leneral 
 Dix. 
 
 On the part of the Ignited States it was claimed that the fact of the 
 chiimaut's havinj;' been actively enj;aji'ed in aitliii;; the enemies of the 
 United States, and that he innuediatt'ly thereal'ter came fr«)m Nassau, 
 the principal [lort in the Atlantic from which intercourse with the States 
 in rebellion was kept up through the blocka<le, to New York, Justitied the 
 autlKuities of the United States in arresting; and holdiii';' him both as a 
 prisoner of war and as a probable spy. 
 
 On the part of the claimant it was contended that there was no proof 
 of any olfen(;e committed by the claimant ayainst the laws of the United 
 States, or the laws or prin» iples of neutrality. Tiiat even if he had 
 voluntarily particii)ated in the cruise of the ( 'ity of lvl(;hmond to ecpiip 
 the Stonewall, this fact would have furnished uo Justitication for his 
 subsecpieiit arrest in New York, tiiouyh it mijiht have sullic cd to «leter- 
 niine Her 31ajesty's <jovernment not to interlere for his prote(!tion or 
 indemnity. That the informality in his passport was caused, if not (con- 
 trived, by the United States consul at Nassau, and that the assnraiKic 
 by that ollicer to the (daimant that the passport was a sulllcientone was 
 iu bad faith, and made with a view to the claimant's arrest when he 
 should arrive in the city of New York, the consul haviujx sent by the same 
 ship a letter addressed to (Jeneral Dix, j^ivin;;" him the information upon 
 which he acted; and thatthecIaimant'sim[Misonment was unnec(\ssarily 
 ami unjustly severe and prolonj;«'d. 
 
 Tiie commission unanimously awarded to the claimant the sum of 
 $1,2(10. 
 
 The cases of John C. Kahmin;;, No, 7; Joseph Eneas, No. 120; and 
 Joseph W. liinney, No. ;3.>2, were of substantially the same character, 
 and were all deci<led at the same time. These claimants were all dom- 
 iciled in the city of New York, and there enj^ased in tra<le. All were 
 carrying on a considerable trade with the port of Nassau, and were 
 arrested on the charjie of carrying on an unlawful traftii; with the enemies 
 of the United States under color of their trade with Nassau. Kahining 
 and Eneas were both arrested on the 31st December, 1803, and conttued 
 
w 
 
 64 
 
 AMKKICAX-IJK'ITISU CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 lunlor juilit'iry autlioiit^- in Fort r.afii.v<'tto, until -Inly 2, ISOI, ami tluMi 
 (li.s('liai<;(Ml without tiial, ou jiivinj;' bonds lor tiu'ir appearance if eallcd 
 on lor trial by tlie United States authorities. IJahniinj^ ha«l also been 
 previously arrested, on a charjieol" haviii;n- shii»ped arms to the rebels, in 
 Septembei-, ISOI, aiul had then been «letained as a |m isouer in Foit Lalay- 
 ett«' for tilteen days. IJinney was arrested on the Itth .Tiiiu', ISiit, im- 
 prisoned in Fort Lafayette undei' military authority for ti\"e weeks, and 
 then transferred to a Jail in thecntyof New York, where he was detained 
 seventeen days lonjLjerand was then discharged by General l)ix without 
 any [jonds or security r«M|nired. 
 
 In i'aeh of tluise cases it was alleged by t\w claimant, and proofs were 
 taken in support of such alle;^ations, that the claimants were iiuiocent 
 of the olV» nces charj;ed aj^ainst them; that their imprif-onment was 
 unn<>(!essarily and imitrojit'rly protracted ; and that tlu'y received im- 
 proper and unnecess. iily severe treatment dnrin;jf their imiuisonmeiit. 
 Proofs w« " taken on the part of the l'nil<'d States to show the chai}>es 
 a}»ainst liu'Ui well founded, and to rel»nt the char;;es of improper treat- 
 nuMit. In each of the cases allc.uations were also made of lar^e result- 
 \i\i£ d;nna,u('s to the claimants by r«'ason of their imprisonnu'ut. 
 
 JJahmin.'^, I»y his nu'morial.clainu-d damajies.'j',")S(>,S(»(l, besides interest. 
 He was awarded by the majority of the commissitMi (.Mr, Commissioner 
 Fra/er disseidiny on the (pM'stion of amount taerely) the sum ef 
 
 Fneas claimed dama;,'es .'»'7:.*(>J>(>(>, besides int;'rest, and was awarded 
 $l,r)l(t, ;dl tlie (Hunmissloneis joininji". 
 
 Iiinney daimeti ^l <>(»,( too, b«'si<les interest, and was awarded $."),.'J90, 
 all the commissioners ioinin<^. 
 
 Iti ea<'hof the eases 1 am advi^ied that the decision turned upon (puvs- 
 ti<n!s of fa<rt, all the <*ommissiotiers aurcein;; that the proofs, tl'on;jfh 
 snllicii'tit to warrant the arrest in each case, did not h'uve the truth of 
 the charges free lr(»m doubt : anil that the de <'ntion of tiu' prisoners 
 witlumt trial was unueci'ssariiy protrai'ted. Mi. Conunissioner Frazer 
 read an opinion in the ease of Ualimin;;', which will be found in the 
 ai»peMdi.\, I. 
 
 In the case of John Cai'villo Stovin. Xo. I'.'J, chiiir.iint was arrested at 
 Cuudx-rlaml, .AM., in <)ctol)er, ISilL on the charge of disioyally, in 
 attendi!i;4 sect'ssiou meetin;4s in ("uiMberland, and liein^ the means of 
 lransmittin;.j information to the eutuiy. He was taken to Fort Mc- 
 Henry, there detained for altoui ti'.;- weeks, and disehar}i;<'d without 
 ti'ial. lie alle;j;ed that hi.s busini'ss as a mannfacluri-r at ('umliciland 
 was stopped, and in elle«*t desti'oy«Ml by his iirrest, and claimed dam 
 a^es !*.!>'<», "!• I. U7, besides interest; incbMlii};, however, some (he wood, 
 hay, corn, ami oats, allej^cd to have been taken and appropriated l>y 
 the I'nitcd States stddiers. lie alleju'cd, als(), ill ircatment while in 
 conlinenn :!f, Proofs were taken on both sides on the ijuestion of hi'* 
 
 m 
 
 Ji 
 
 ■V 
 
 t 
 
AG EXT S REPORT. 
 
 65 
 
 ami tliou 
 
 if called 
 
 ilso l)e»'n 
 
 kIx'Is, ill 
 
 lit liillll.V- 
 
 1H(;|, iiii- 
 ;cks, aiul 
 •li'tiiiiu'd 
 i witliout 
 
 Kits were 
 iiuiocj'iit 
 uMit was 
 ■ivcd iiii- 
 
 SOIlUil'llt. 
 
 ' cliaryt's 
 K»r tieat- 
 ;c' it'sult- 
 
 infcrcst. 
 
 iissioiii'i' 
 
 siiiii <d' 
 
 awarded 
 
 $.",,;?90, 
 
 II IjlUVS- 
 
 truth of 
 isoiiers 
 l''i:i/(>r 
 in the 
 
 ted at 
 illy, in 
 
 CilllS oi' 
 
 >H Me- 
 vvidioiit 
 •erliiiid 
 d dam 
 wnod, 
 itcd (»y 
 lile ill 
 of Li** 
 
 W 
 
 disloyal ooiidnet, and i'. was eont<'iided on the part of the United States 
 that tlu^ facts (»f the <!ase Justilied his arrest as a disloyal person, 
 openly ;;ivin^- aid and comfort to the rebellion by his lanj'iiajje and 
 expressions of synipa'.liy, in a villa<(e situated upon the frontiers v. the 
 enemy's country, and where such <!oiiducb involved danger tt) the mili- 
 tary opeiiitioiis of the Unitei States. 
 
 i)n the part of the claimant the char^res of disloyal «'onduct and laii- 
 };iia;i'e were denied, and proof whs adduced to show him a law-abiding 
 and peac.'alile inhabitant. 
 
 The <:oiiimissioii <;avejin award to the claimant of $S,3()0, al! the com- 
 missioners joiniii;^. 
 
 In the case of Frank Ifiissell IJeadiiifr, Xo. 43, t1 e claimant was 
 arrested in the city of Washiiiy:ton on the Oth July, 1 .^(54, that city then 
 beiii}»: tlircateiied by the rebel forces under (liMieral Itlariy; was brouj;ht 
 to trial before a military commission in Washinjiton on iln> charjje of 
 utterinj; disloyal and treasonaiile lanjiua^e in the District of Cidumbiii 
 when threaieiuMl l>y the enemy, such lanj^iia^e bein<!; cahMi'.atcd to give 
 aid, comfort, and assistance to the eiieuiy. He was found j.;iiilty by tho 
 commissicui, and s«Miten<ted to imprisonment for live years, with iiard 
 li'lior. at the Dry T(utu;ras, or such other military prison as the Secretary 
 of War iiiiju'lit sele(;t. ITuder this sentence he was imjnisoned at Fort 
 J)elaware from the .'>(Uh Auju^nst, ISlii, till 1st .lune, ISO,"), 
 
 On the part of the lJiiit»'d States it was contended that the. militiiiy 
 commissiot, was a lawful tribunal, competent for the trial and piiiiish- 
 nieiit of military otfences, and liavinj^ full jurisdiction of the cas«- of tho 
 <'laimant. both as to subject-matter and person; that at the time of his 
 arrest and trial Washington was a city in military occupation, environed 
 l)y foits of the United States, o(!cupied and defended by their armies, 
 the lieadciiiarters of the ('ommander-in-("hief of the Army and Navy of 
 the United States, and, as the capital of the country, always a \ ital 
 ]»«»iiit of attack for the rebel forces, and at this specific time tin? airtuaj 
 objective point of a vij;oroiis and determined at'ack by the enemy, who 
 actually reached, as their advanced post, on the li'th.liily, l-'ort Stevens, 
 within the limits of the Distrii;t of Columbia and within four or five 
 miles of the Capitol. 
 
 That the oifence (diar^od ap;ainst Readinpf was a purely military 
 otleiice, ol' which the civil tribunals had not cof^nizance, and so was not 
 within the priinMple held by the Siii»reme Court in the case of Milli|j;aii, 
 (MVall., L'.) 
 
 That IN'adinj; haviii*? appeared in person and by counsel before tim 
 military tribunal, and haviiifj pleaded in chief, without raising; any <pieH- 
 tion to the jurisdiction, could not be heard to (piestion the jtirisdiirtlou 
 of the tribunal as to his person merely: and that the commission hav- 
 injj; by law jurisdiction of the sul)ject-matter of tho clnu};e, tho failure 
 to object to jurisdiction us to the person obviated uU question us to 
 5 II 
 
66 
 
 AMERICAN-IJRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 their coinplete jiiiisdiction. The eomi.sel for the United Htutes cited the 
 ca«e of \'idljiiidigham, (I AVall., I'i.'i.) 
 
 On tlic! part of the chiiinant it was contended that the military trihu- 
 i)al had no jnrisdiction whatever, and tiiat the iniprisonnjcnt of the 
 chiiniant nndi'r it was wholly without authority of law. 
 
 The commission gave a unanimous award in favor of the claimant for 
 $15,400. 
 
 In the case of .John J. Shaver, Xo. .II, the inenH)rial alle;j;tM[ that the 
 claimant, beinj^ at the tinn' domiciled in Canada, but triivcllin«;- in the 
 United States on the business of the (irand Tinnk Itailway ComjKiny, 
 a ('ana<lian corporation, of whicii he was an a<,'ent, was arrested at 
 Detroit, on the l.")th October, 1801, by direction of 3Ir. Seward, theSei;- 
 retary o{ State of the United States; that he was taken theiujc to 
 Fort Lafayette, in New Vork Harbor, and con lined tbeie, and subse- 
 quently at Fort Warren, in Uoston Harbor, until the (Uh .January, 1S()2. 
 He allejied that by his arrest he was thrown out of lucrative emi»loy- 
 inent as aj^i'ut of the railway (U)m|)any name<l; that by it he lost the 
 contidence of his employers and was unable to rejiain his position after 
 his n'lease; ami that he sulfereil large pecuniary losses in conseipience. 
 He claimed damages .m 100,000. 
 
 The arrest was made ui>on information communicated to !\Ir. Seward 
 that the claimant was enga^^etl in conveying communications between 
 the rebels in Canada and those within tlu' insurrectionary States. The 
 proofs failed to sustain the charge, ami it appeared that Mi'. Kennedy, 
 chief of poli(!e of the city of New Vork, imnu'diaiely after the arrest of 
 the claimant, reported to the State Department that In; f()und m* proofs 
 to warrant his detention, or to injplicate hinj in any impro[)er comnumi- 
 cation with the enemy. 
 
 The tronunission awanled the claimant !i«'M),204, Mr. Commissioner 
 Frazer tlissenting on the tpu'stion of anu)unt oidy. 
 
 In the case of Samuel (1. Levy, No. 01, it appeare«l that the claimant, 
 a resident of Canada, on landing in Doston from a IJritish steamshi[» 
 from Liv«'rpool in May, ISIJI, was taken theuj^e to New V(nk. an«l ther»' 
 detained for al>out eight days, on a(!harge of being eng.igcd in blockade- 
 running. At the en«l of that time he was discharged upon giving bail 
 for hisappearancH' within six nu)nths, if re([iured. He alleged large con. 
 se(puuitial damages by interference with hisdue attention to his business, 
 and by the enforced breaking of an engagement of marriage in conse- 
 He«]uence of his arrest, ami <',laiined as damages, CJO,Oi)0. 
 
 The commission unanimously gave him an iiward of ^WMi. 
 
 Tn the case of James Stott, No. 271, it appeared that the claimant, 
 domiciled in the Stat<M)f Main**, was arrested at Dexter, Me., September 
 2, l.S<}.{,<ui the charge of being a desertiT from a <'avalry regiment in the 
 United States service; was sent theuceto the regiment from which b" was 
 
AGENT 8 IIEPORT. 
 
 07 
 
 uitcd the 
 
 ly trilm- 
 i»t of the 
 
 mant for 
 
 tliat the 
 
 W 
 
 1^- in the 
 
 1 
 
 otnpaiiy, 
 
 i 
 
 ■ested at 
 
 
 . the Ht'e- 
 
 '(■ 
 
 hence to 
 
 
 d Hubse- 
 
 ■ ')': 
 
 iiy, 1S02. 
 
 1 
 
 eini»h>y- 
 
 1 
 
 .' h)yt the 
 
 1 
 
 ion alter 
 
 i 
 
 stMineiiee. 
 
 '^-i- 
 
 '. Seward 
 
 
 between 
 
 1 
 
 es. The 
 
 1 
 
 vcnnedy, 
 
 1 
 
 arrest of 
 
 1 
 
 no proofs 
 
 1 
 
 'ontnumi- 
 
 A 
 
 nissioner 
 
 1 
 
 claimant, 
 
 
 teaniship 
 
 
 md there 
 
 
 ilockath'- 
 
 
 vinj;- bail 
 
 , 
 
 ar^e eon. 
 
 
 bnsiness, 
 
 
 in eonse- 
 
 
 clainiant, 
 t'pteinber 
 nt in the 
 ch h'^ was 
 
 alleged to have (h'serted, at Warrenton,Va., where it plainly ajMM'ared that 
 tlie ehar;je was unfounded, it beinj;a case of mistaken identity. lit' was 
 detained until the Uth of Novend)er, ISIJ.'); and, for the purpose of makinj,' 
 hint some compensation as to loss of tinu', an<l of j;ivin<>' him trans|)orta- 
 tion back to his honu', was mustered into the United iStates service and 
 discharj^c'd with the pay of a private soldier for the time he hatl been 
 detaiiu'd, ami with traiisportation back to his home. 
 
 An award was made for >ifl"} in favor of the claimant, in which all the 
 commissioners joined. 
 
 .Tohn I. Crawford, Xo. 71), was arrested in the city of New York, on 
 the 10th of May, ISfil ; st'nt to Fort Lafayette, aiul there detained until 
 the -7th of .luly, 18(14, when he was broniLfht to trial before a military 
 eommission in the city of Xew York, on the charge of violation of the 
 hiws of war, in passing' throuj>h the military lines of the enenjy, lirst, 
 from South Carolina, by way of Jii<!hmond, to New Vork ; second, from 
 New Vork again, by way of Nassau ami Wilmington, through the block- 
 a(h>, to South Carolina ; and again from South (Carolina, by way of liich- 
 moml, to Xew York ; ami also by pun^hasing goods in Xew Vork, and 
 seuiling tluMU thence through the lines to liichmond, A'a. lie was 
 convicted on all the specihcations e.vcei)t that relating to the purchasing 
 and sending of goods, a.id was sentem;ed to give bonds in such sum 
 aiul with such sureties as should be satisfactory to the general in com- 
 mand of the department, that he would not visit, trallic, or correspond 
 with the States in rebellion, nor give aid, comfort, or inf( . :nation to the 
 enemy during tin? war, in default of giving siu-h bonds to be (iontined 
 at hard labtu* during the war. Tiie bond was imnjediately given, and 
 Cra\vf(U'd was discharged. The proofs betbre the commission fully sus- 
 tained the tindingsof the military tribunal. 
 
 On the part of the <;laimant it was contemled that the military tri- 
 bunal was without Jurisdiction, and that the claimant's imprisonment 
 and detention were unlawful. 
 
 The menunial claiuu-d !«<r>(M),(M)0 as damages, and the eommissiou 
 unanimously disallowe<l the claim. 
 
 In the ease of .lolin Carmoily, No. S,"), it appeared that the claimant, 
 domiciled in New Orleans, Mas, in March, IS(jr), conscrii>te<l into the 
 military service of the United States; the notice of his conscription 
 HMpiiring him to report for military service was addressed to him l»y 
 the nanu» of John Kenuly, and on receiving it he jinMuired from the 
 Jbitish consul at New Orleans a certilicate of his liritish nationality, 
 which he alleged that he j)resented to the ollicerin charge of the oriice 
 nt which he was re«iuire<l to report, but two days after was arrested by 
 a s(piad of United States soldiers, and was detained in a military prison 
 for some live or six weeks. The arrest and detention evidently arose 
 from mistake growing out of the confusion of names. The memoriu 
 
 1 ,' 
 
 ty 
 
68 
 
 AMERICAX-imiTISFI CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 V, 
 
 I' 
 
 t'laiiiMMl $100,000 damajjos. besido.s interest, siiul the commission iinani- 
 moiisly awarded the ehiimaiit 8r)00. 
 
 In the ease of William Patriek, No. 07, it ajjpeared that the claimant 
 a fJritish merchant, domiciled in Xew York, was, on the 2Sth An^jiist, 
 IS'Jl, arrested and (committed to Fort Lafayette, where he was detained 
 till the l.'Jtii September followinj;, when he was dis(d) arched. His arrest 
 was l>as<>d on the char^je that the firm in New York of which he was » 
 iiiemher, and which had a branch house also at 3Iobile, Ala., was 
 a channel for carrying; on correspondence between rebels in liUrojie and 
 those in the insurrectionary States. Kepresentations by highly respect- 
 able citizens of New York of Mr. Patri(^k's loyalty were made to the 
 Secretary of State, and the IJritish minister also intervened in his behalf. 
 Jnvestifiiiiion showed that the charj^e a,ii;ainst .^Ir. Patrick was without 
 foundation, and he was discharjjed after a conllnement of seventeen 
 days. The i)roof's established Mr. Patrick to have been a •^fentleman of 
 high social and business standing;, and also to have been in conduct 
 marlvcd by loyalty and }j;ood faith toward the Government durinj^^ the 
 rebellion, and to have furnished liberal contributions in its aid. Jlis 
 arrest was undoubtedly caused by false or erroneous information. 
 
 On behalf of the claimant punitory danjafjes were claimed. On the 
 l)art of the United States it was insisted that no sueh daHm<?es could 
 be allowed ; that Mr. l*atrick, domiciled within the United States, was 
 e.\i»oscd in the same dejjfree with citizens ot those States to arrest on 
 falsccliarjics or oroneous information, and tiiat. havin.i( been dlscharj^ed 
 Avitiim a reasonable time for in<piiry to be nmde, he was not entitled to 
 claim damaj^es ajjfsiiust the United States. That if any dama;;es were 
 awarded to him, they should be such only as would afford him fair com- 
 ])cnsation for the injury inllicted. 
 
 The memorial claimed !i«100,000, besides interest. The commission 
 awarded th«^ claimant 8">,100, Mr. Commissioner (lurney dissenting on 
 the question of amount. 
 
 In tlie case of Joseph J. P»evitt. No. 101, the claimant, until that time 
 domiciled in South Carolina and Virginia, left l{ichnu)n«! in Ai)ril, 1S(;;{, 
 and pas,s«Ml tiuouyh the rebel lines tt) the I'otomac Jliver, was there 
 taken on board a United States transi^rt steamer on the ^}Oth April, 
 l.S(»ii, taken to Washington, detained in the Old Capitol i»rison until the 
 ]'.Mh May, and then sent back into the confederacy. 
 
 On the part of the claimant, it was contended that lievitt, being a 
 iJritish subject, and not having olVended against the laws of the United 
 States, or taken part in the (hnnestii! st'ife then in progress, was enti- 
 tled to su(!h egress without molestatio',i by the public authorities. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was maintained that the attempt 
 of the claimant to enter the loyal jmrtion of the United States from the 
 enemy's country, and through bis military lines, after having voluntarily 
 
AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 69 
 
 ttoinpt 
 oin tlio 
 iilarily 
 
 romiiiiiod within tlio oneiny's country diiriii",' two years of tli*^ war, was 
 oiii' wiiicli the United States luijiht lawfully i»revent or imiiisli, and 
 that their seinlin^' hitn liaek into the enemy's country, from which he 
 came, was an act permitted by public law. 
 
 The commission disaUowed the claim, .Mr. Commissioner Gurnoy dis- 
 senting'. 
 
 In the case of William Ashton, No. ;>U.">, the claimant, until then domi- 
 ciled in the State of South Carolina, in February, lS(i.;, came north 
 through th« Federal lines under a pass from the confederate (Jeneral 
 Lee, and while crossin<j the Potomac River into the State of Maryland 
 was arrested l»y the naval patrol, on the 7th l-'ebruary, ISil.i. lie was 
 taken to \Vashinj;ton, there detained until the 11th May, 1S(m, and then 
 sent back throujjh the liiu's into the eiu'iiiy's country. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was contended that the case was 
 parallel with that of lievitt, above reported, ami that the arrest, deten- 
 tion, and return of the claimant were lawful acts under the reco<;iiiz('d 
 laws of war. 
 
 The c(»mnjissi(Mi awarded to him the sum of !^i»,00(>, ^Ir. Commissioner 
 Frazer ilissentinj;. 
 
 The undersij;-ned finds dilUculty in reconciling the decisicm of the 
 commission in thiscase with that in the case of JJevitt. It may be luttetl, 
 however, that Hevitt was detained but twenty days before being sent 
 back, while Ashton was detained three months and four days. 
 
 In the case of Thomas Harry, No. I'JT, the <'laiinant, (lomiciled at Xew 
 Orleans, alleged that, on the l.")th March, ISill, he was arrested witluuit 
 any cause or provocati(m, butar utrarily and maliciously, Ity a provost- 
 marshal umU'r the onh'rs of (Jeneral Uanks, then in command of the 
 dei»artnient; was committed to the parish prison, there conlined for 
 ten weeks, and then released on giving a bond conditioned that ho 
 should report daily to the provost-marshal in the city of New (hleans. 
 That he (continued so to report until the ."(Ist December, ISOt. when the 
 bond was cancelled and the claimant fully discharged, lie claimed 
 <lamages !<r>(>,0(KK The; proofs showed that he was arr<'steil in the act 
 of clandestinely and in disguise attempting to pass tVom New Orleans 
 through the lines into the enemy's cor.ntry, having upon his person let- 
 ters to residents within the enemy's lines, and carrying confederatti 
 money — the use of which was forbidden by the Federal antlnuitics. 
 That only two mtuiths bebu-e he had peipet rated the sanu' oHence in the 
 same disguise; had visited many place's within the enemy's lines, and 
 had returne'l into the Federal lines in the same clandesliiu! manner. 
 Jh'forehis j rrest he had applied for permits to go within the confederate 
 lines for the alleged purpose of lookinjf up and bringing back cotton 
 alleged to have been owned by him; but such permission had been re- 
 fused. 
 
 The claiui was unanimously disallowed. 
 
 I.'i 
 
70 
 
 AMKKICAN-nRITISII CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 ! 
 
 ll 
 
 
 In the case of Ilcmy (Jlovor, No. 131, the claimaiil, a rosidont of tlio 
 State of (leoryia, was, in Xoveniher, 18(54, in company with a companion, 
 in Jones County, Geoiffia, within the enemy's ttnritoiy, overtaken by a 
 detachment of cavah'y from the coi'iis of (Jeneral Kilpatiick, formiiifjf a 
 ]):iit of tin; llankin";- force of (ieneral SheiMnan's army in themardi from 
 Atlanta to Savannah. His (;<)mpanion lied and was tired upon; claim- 
 ant waited, was arrested and detained for twenty-four hours, when he 
 Avas discharj^ed, it ai)pearin{5 that he was a civilian and a llritish sub- 
 ject. 
 
 J lis claim was disallowed, all the commissioners ajjreeiny. 
 
 The case of Thonnis IT. Facer, No. 203, was similar in character to 
 that of Glover, and was disallowed in like manner. 
 
 In the case of the administrators of James Syme, No. 130, it ai)peared 
 that the de(;edent! had been for many years domii^iled at New Orleans, 
 and there carrying; on a larf>(^ trade as a wholesale and retail drujip;ist ; 
 that on the L*,Sth August, 18(52, he was arrested and taken before ]MaJor- 
 General IJutler, then in command of the department of the Gulf, and 
 there arrai;;ned on charges styletl in the nx'inorial " false, wicked, and 
 malicious,'' to the effect that he had aided and abetted the so-called 
 confederates by the shipment of sulphur, drujjs, and medicines into 
 tlH'ir lines, and that he had violated his neutrality. General IJutler? 
 beinj; satislied of the truth of the char<»es, coin inned him, without the 
 intervention of any court or military tribunal, to be imi)risoned at Fort 
 IMckens for three years at hard labor with ball and (;hain ; the ball ami 
 chain were, however, within a few days, and before the commencement 
 of execution of the order, remitted. He was detained in confinement at 
 New Oiieans for about six weeks; then scut under guard to l-'ort I'ick 
 ens, in i'cnsacola Harbcu-, Florida, and there confined until about the 
 1st Mar(!h, 18(53, when h<- was l)rought back to New Orleans, and there 
 detained during an inv«'stigation by a military commission, which re- 
 l)orted him not guilty of the charges ni)on which he was iini)risoned' 
 iVnding the proceedings of this commission lui was discharged from 
 confinement by order of General jlanks, who had succeeded General 
 JJutlcr in command, on giving a bond, with surety, in the sum of 82(),(K)(), 
 conditioned for his appearance on recpiireinent by the Go\ernment. 
 Upon the report of the commission the bond was canceled August 28, 
 18(53. At the same time with liis arrest his drugstore and contents, in 
 New Orleans, were seized and appropriated to iho use of the United 
 States, and remained in their possession until about the 1st May, 18(54, 
 when the store, with so mucli of the stock of «lrugs, &i;., as had not been 
 usetl, was surrendered to his possession by order of the War Depart- 
 ment. 
 
 A large amount of testimony was taken on both sides upon tlie ques- 
 tion of his guilt or innocence of the charges on which he was impris- 
 oned. 
 
AGENTS REPOUT. 
 
 71 
 
 'lit of tlio 
 iDpaiiioii, 
 ikon bv n 
 
 irch from 
 II ; claim- 
 , wlion lie 
 itish sub- 
 
 iiacter to 
 
 ai)i)oaro(l 
 
 • Orleans, 
 
 ilrnji<i;i.st ; 
 
 >re 3Iajor- 
 
 (Julf, and 
 
 L'Uod, and 
 
 so-called 
 
 iiies into 
 
 al ])ntler» 
 
 tlioiit the 
 
 d at Fort 
 
 ball and 
 
 Miceinent 
 
 ement at 
 
 (ut Tick 
 
 bont the 
 
 lid there 
 
 which re- 
 
 )risoned' 
 
 •cd from 
 
 ( I en era! 
 
 *LM),()0(>, 
 
 t'ninient. 
 
 .Uiist 2S, 
 
 tents, in 
 
 ^ United 
 
 iiy, 18(54, 
 
 not been 
 
 Uepart- 
 
 lie ques- 
 i impris- 
 
 on thepartof the United States, it was also proved that the decedent, 
 ill NoviMiiber, ISOl, and a^ain in March, ISOL', had accepted commis- 
 sions as surgeon — lirstwith the rank of captain, and afterwards with the 
 rank of major — in the battalion of the Louisiana State militia tlesi*;. 
 nateil as the Uritish Fusiliers ; that this battalion was a rejiularly orjjan- 
 i/ed portion of the State militia of tiie rebel State of rjonisiana, but was 
 orj^anizcd niK'cr the reservation that its members should be required to 
 serve only within the limits of the city of N»»w Orleans ; that, on the 
 acceptanc«^ of these commissions, the decuMleiit was re(piinMl by law 
 to take, and did take, an oath faithfully to discharf'e the duties of the 
 oHice to wiiicli he had been appi)iiited, and to support, protec't, and de- 
 fend the const itution of the State of Ijoiiisiana and of the ('on federate 
 States ; that at the time of accepting tliest; commissions, respectively, the 
 decedent was above tiu^ aj^e of forty-livt^ years, and was exempt by the 
 lawsof the State of liouisiana from militia service, by reason of a}>e, even 
 if otherwise liable by reason of nationality or domicile. ICviilence was 
 also jiiveii on the part of the United States to the effect that Dr. Syme, 
 shortly after the occupation of Xew Orleans by the Federal forces, re- 
 fused to sell medical and surgical supi>lies to medical ollicers of the 
 United States Army. Dr. Syme died in Janiulry, 1.S72, befon* the t\\\\\>* 
 of the memorial, leavinj;- a widow and one son entitleil to inherit his 
 estate, both born within the United States and always domiciled there. 
 
 On liie part of the United States it was (contended that by the ac- 
 ceptance of tiiese commissions and tlie takinj; of the oaths above 
 reciteil. Dr. Syme had <lei»rived himself of the condition of a neutral 
 alien and assumed the character of an enemy of the United States, and 
 was not entitled to a standing: s^"^ <^ I'ritish subject uiuler the treaty ; 
 that the proofs fully sustained the charges upon which he was con- 
 demned by (General MiitlcM-; that if any doubt existed upon tln^ proofs 
 HOW before the (commission as to the truth of those charj-es, the evi- 
 dence before (leneral IJntler and upon which ho acted was ("crtainly 
 sulHcieiit to sustain his tindiiif? and to justify the condemnation jiro- 
 nouiKH'd by him upon the ]»roofs before him; that as military com- 
 mander of a captured city within the enemy's country, then strictly and 
 soh'ly under military jnovernment, ileneral F.utler was v«'ste<l with 
 full authority to administer military law, either in person or through 
 military courts and tribunals orjjanized nmler his order; that the of- 
 fense of which he found Dr. Syme uuilty was a crime under military 
 law of a lii^h grade, and justifying ihe sentence pronounci'd upon him. 
 
 The memorial claimed damages for Wut arrest and imprisoiiment, 
 $10(»,()()0; for the <lrugs and other property of the decedent taken and 
 appropriated by the United States, (less the value of the aimmnt re- 
 turned,) and the rent of the store, ii<l(;(;,«L*."); and damages by the break- 
 ing up of the business of the decedent, and the loss of profits which ho 
 would have derived from the business, $1.50,()(M>, besides interest. 
 
 The commission (Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting) made an award 
 
72 
 
 AMEIilCAN-HRlTlSII CLAIMS COMMISSION'. 
 
 1'> 
 
 m 
 
 in fiivor (►!* the claimants for $11 0,2(U). I am advised tliat tlii.s award 
 included notliing tor dama<;'es for imprisonnuMit, but was made solely 
 in respect of the driijjfs and other property taken and appropriated by 
 the United States, and the rent of the drnj^-stoie whih^ occupied by 
 them. Mr. Commissioner Frazer expressed his views upon the case as 
 follows : 
 
 IJisiiijj over tin- military age, an<l exempt IVoni military duty as a <lriijij;ist also, Dr. 
 Syiiii^ took a commission in tlit! Itritish Kiisilicrs and an xatli of oilic*- lo support tin- 
 rfl«'l confidciacy, and cviiu'cd his liostility liirtlier, a.s I dci-m tin- wcijiht of tlif cvi- 
 dfncif to nIiow, liy riCnsinj; tosill jroods to the I'nitcd States altci Nrw ( Mlcans Cell into 
 I'l'dcral possession. Tlii» made liini an actual enemy, and lie could havi; no standing 
 to proseeute a claim lielbre this commission. Tlu^ henedeiaries — his wife and child — 
 have none, hecausit they ale Americans. Jiis condemnation hy (general Ihitler was 
 upon what iippearcd at tliu tinn: to he satisfactory evidence, though it was snhse- 
 <|Ueutly shown hefore fln» military commission, organized under thi< order of (Jeneral 
 Hanks, tliat he was prohahly innocent of the chaiges ujion which he was ariistcd. He 
 was restored to liherty as soon iis an investigation conld conveniently he had ; and 
 wlnit remained unconsumcd of his conhscated goods was also restored, together with 
 the po.ssession of his huilding. 
 
 In so nnicli of this opinion of Mr. Commissioner Frazer as relates 
 to the sutliciency of the evidence upon which Cleneral IJiitler acted to 
 snstjiin his lindin^i; and sentence, ami as relates to the probable actual 
 innocence of Dr. 8yme as apiu'arinj;' before the commission, I am advised 
 that the majority of the connnission concurreil. 
 
 In the case of Williatn 15. Pumth, No. 14.'?, a claim was made for 8")n,0(>(» 
 damages fcuthe alle<4ed wron;>ful arrest of the claimant in the nei<;hbor- 
 hood of I'ort .lacksou, Louisiana, and subse(pient imi)iisonment. lie 
 was arr«'sted by United States soldiers on the 8th Au«i;ust, 1S(»l', taken 
 to Fint .lacksou, and there conliiied till the USth August; then sent to 
 Fort IMckens, IVnsacola Harbor, and tiuMe coullned till the l.'ith August, 
 ISO.'}; then taken back to New Orleans and detained till the 2Glh August, 
 liStKi, when he was uucoiiditioually releasetl. 
 
 Previous to his arrest. Dr. IJooth, who resided in Louisiana, two miles 
 from the Ibrts and outside the lines of military occupation by the United 
 States, had been on the reijuestof Dr. (iordon, the surgetm of the forts, 
 visitiiifi' and i)res(Mibinft' for the prisoners and Fc<leral soldiers at the forts. 
 (iren. Neal Dow, thecommand«!r, learniu<>' ihe fact, had notilied him that 
 he coidd not be permitted to visit the Ibrts without taking the oath of 
 allegiance, or giving his parole of honor not to ('ommunicate information 
 to the enemy. Dr. Uooth declined to do either of these things. After his 
 arrest \w still continued his refusal to give the retpiired parole, and, per- 
 sisting in his refusal, (leneral Dow ordered his transfer to Fort I'ickcnsand 
 his detention there. At this time Forts Jackson and Saint Philip, lying 
 on tile opposite banks of the Mississippi some one hundred miles or more 
 below the city of New Orleans, were occupied by a United States force of 
 aboutsixhumlred soldiers, and about the same number of liberated slaves, 
 under the command of General Dow. The garrisons were weak, and a 
 
 ^A 
 
AGKXT S KEPORT. 
 
 73 
 
 liir^c ihiiiiIkm' of tlio tioops actiiiilly tlM'io were piostrati'd l)y sickiioss. 
 (Iciu'ial Dow iU't'iiiiMl it of tlio utmost importiiiua' that a kiiowhMl^c of tli(< 
 weakness of his {fanisou should he kept froui theeueiuy. The refusal of 
 ])r. liooth to ii'ivci the re(|uiie(l parole rouse<l the suspieious of (leueral 
 ])o\v,an<l wheniiersistediiijledtohissendin^theclaiiuantto h'ort rieki'us. 
 During Ins stay at Fort Pickens, and alter his retransler thentM' to New 
 Orleans, he still peisisted in refusing; to ^ive the recpiired parole, an<l 
 was lihally dis('liar;;ed, after a conlineinent of nearly tiiirU'en months^ 
 unconditionally and without parole. Lord Lyons, durinj;' his <'onfin«'- 
 ment, in a h'tter to Mv. Coppell, Uiitish consid at X»'w Orleans, stat«'<l 
 that the rcipiired piirole was <leenied not unreasonalih; l»y ller .Majesty's 
 government, after consultinj; thi^ law ()nicers of the (hown. 
 
 On the part of (lie United States it was insisted that the arrest and 
 detention of Dr. Uixnh were warranted as measures of just nnlitaiy 
 juecaution in rcijard to an enemy l)y domicile possessed of knowled;>e, 
 the communiciilion of whi('h to the enemy would be highly <lan;jerous 
 to the United States, ami who, by his refusal to .ijive tliis |)ropiM' and 
 reasonable ideduc, had, in the lan;>iiaj;e of liord I>yons, entitled the 
 Unite<l States to treat him as a sns[)ected person. 
 
 The nuMuoiial of Dr. liooth also includ(>d claims to the amount of 
 -^S.'5,.S0(), besides interest, for [U'operty of the claimant alle;:;-ed to have 
 been taken and appropriated by the United States. 
 
 The (iommission (Mr. (commissioner Frazer dissentinj;) awarded to 
 the claimant the sum of si' !.,!)()(), which award was, as I am advised, 
 wholly in lespect of property taken, and included nothing' on account of 
 the arrest and imiirisonment. 
 
 .lohn McCann, No. 17.'5, and Johti Mnrta, No. ll>r», natives of Irelaiul 
 and <lomiciIed in Luzerne County, IVnnsylvania, were irrested there — 
 3IcCanu in September, ISd.'J, and Murta in November, l.S(5;{ — by United 
 States trooi)s, nnder antluuity of a provost-marshal ; were taken to l"\)rt 
 .Miniin and there conlined, McUann till ALin-h and Murta till April, l.SJU. 
 
 The proofs showed that at tin* tinu' of their arrest an «)ry;ani/ed con- 
 spiracy existed in Ln/.crne County and vicinity to resist the l-'ederal 
 draft for troojts; that jiireat violence was used a;i;ainst I'l'deral otUcers ; 
 that open detiance of the Federal authority was nnule in public meet- 
 iufjs of the minin;^- popnlation ; that loyal citizens snstainin;;' the Clov- 
 ernment had been assassinated, and measures had been adoi)ted to 
 ambuscade and massacre l"\'deral troops, should they be sent there: to 
 entbrce the dralt ; that the principal disturbing- element in this conspi- 
 racy was the Irish Catholic miners; that not only secret associations 
 were formed, but public meetinpfs were openly held for the avowed pur- 
 jtose of stoppinj;- the mines and thus 8to|)i>in^- the war; that a larj>o 
 nundjer of persons regarded as the riuji'leaders and most dangerous 
 persons in this movement were arrested, antl anion-;' them tliese two 
 claimants. No proof was made of tUo complicity of either of the claim- 
 
 III 
 
11 
 
 I 
 
 If 
 
 74 
 
 AMKRICAX-nRITISII CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 1 1 
 
 1 1 
 
 1 ■ ' 
 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 ants with tlu' actiiul rosistancp to the draft or violation of law ; bnt 
 Miirta was shown to have been a nieniher t>f the or;;ani/ation known as 
 the *' Kni;;hts of the (lohh'n Circle," eieated to o|>iii>s(' the <lraft ami 
 aid the rehellioii. X«'itlier of the elaiinaiits w;is «'ver hronjiht to trial. 
 In the ease of MeCann an award was niad(> in favor of the elaiaiant for 
 ><'>,00U, in wliieli ail the eoaiinissioners joined. In the (;ase of Mnrta an 
 award was made for $1,2U(>, Mr. (Commissioner Fra/er dissenting;-. 
 
 In the (-ase of Thomas Uiley, Xo. 1!)2, the claimant, a resident of Lu- 
 zerne County, Pennsylvania, was tlralted into the United States mili- 
 tary service in November, lS(i;{, was taken to l*hila(lei|»hia ami there 
 held in the United States military barra(tks for about six weeks, when 
 lu^ was taken si<'k and sent to the hospital, and theie remained conlitu'd 
 by disease till the (!th of April, ISiU, when he was dischar^jji'd by the 
 War Department, thron;;h the intervention of Iii)rd Lyons, as bein^if a 
 subject of (Jreat IJiitain, haviuj^ received his pay as a soldier for the 
 time durinj;' which he was held. 
 
 On the part of the L'^nited States It was contended that he was held 
 simjily in conscqueni'e of his failure to <'omply witli thi^ re;;ulations of 
 the provost-marshal's de[)artment in rej-ard to showin;^ lU'oof of alien- 
 aji'e. Tin' v\\si\ showed, however, that the proofs of his aliena'^e w«'re 
 submitted by Lord Lyons to Mr. Sewai'' in November, ISli:!, within a 
 few days after his arrest, and his dischai^^e was not ordered till about 
 four months after. 
 
 The eommissie>n unanimously awarded him the sum of -sSDO. 
 
 Kdward MeCabe, Xo, 1!)7, was drafted into the military service of the 
 United States in (^)iu>ens County, Xew York, in Se[itember, IStJ.'J. lie 
 api)eared belbre the enrollinj;-board and claimed exemption ; was in- 
 formed of the re;;iilation jn-i'scribin;; the method of makiiij;' the neces- 
 sary proof; was ;;iven time to tile it, but failinj;: to do so was arrested by 
 order of the provost-marshal and detained for two days, when, having 
 furnished the m'i;essary proof, he was discharged. 
 
 The commissiou unanimously disallowed his claini. 
 
 Patrick J. (ViNLdligan, Xo. -170, was drafted in Cayuga County, Xew 
 York, in 0(;tober, ISi!.'). IIo appeared before the board of eni()llment 
 and claiauMl exemption as a Jiritish subject, but failed to comply with 
 the regulations tor the proof of alienage, lie was detained for twenty- 
 four hours, and on physi(!al examination by the surgeon was found unlit 
 i'or military service and was dischargeil. For these grievances ho 
 claimed the sum of 8'S()0,0t)(), besides interest. 
 
 Ills claim was nnanimonsly disallowed. 
 
 In the ease of Mary Sophia Hill, No. 108, the claimant, a native of 
 Ireland, was domiciled during the rebellion and for niany years before 
 in New Orleans. At the time of the capture of X^ew Orleans by the 
 
AGKNTS KKPOUT, 
 
 ii) 
 
 ImmIimuI ('(»r<<'s ill 1802. slio Wiiw in attriHliinco on tlio confcdointo hospi- 
 
 tals ill Viryiiiiii, 
 
 but shortly after n'tiiiiicd to New Oiii'aiis iiiuhT a 
 
 ])rop('i' pasH. Ill l.SO.'t sJM' wfiit to In'hiinl, and rctunuMl to New ()r- 
 
 h'aiis, taiviiij;- tl nth of neutrality on hiiKlin^-. She a^alii left New 
 
 Oih ins ill iln' fall of ISO.', niider a pass and wont to Vir^iiiiia, where 
 she remained for liv«' months "reinleriii;; assistaneein the hospitals and 
 to prisoners hy means of tla;;s of trnee.'' In lS(>i she returned to New 
 Orleans, and havinj^iio pass was arrested and iletained in prison for 
 two days; wlu ii, haviiiji; satistied the provost-marshal that slie was a 
 IJritisli siihjeet, sIk! was released on bail. After her disehar^re and 
 wliih' sick she alle;;ed that she was called npon by a woman who yavo 
 the name of Hllen Williams, and <;ave her a not«! pmportin;;- to be Irom 
 (Jen. Tom Taylor, an olliccr of the confederate service commaiidiiiH' a 
 post witliiii the c(»iifeilcrate lines in liOiiisiana. Tliis wctmaii infoinie«l 
 claimant that she was ^-oiii;; throiiyh the lines into the confederacy if 
 she conld j-et a pass trom (leneral Jhinks, and olferetl to take letters 
 from the claimant. Claimant jjave to her a letter to (ieiieral Taylor, 
 a<'kiiowIed<;iiij;- the receipt of his letter, and sa.yin;;- to him, " Commnni- 
 cate and state what yon r«Mpiire, and I will do all in my i)ower; 1 will 
 be here nntil the eml of duly." She also <;;ave to her a letter addressed 
 to her brother, a soldier in the confedeiule service in Vir;;inia, in which 
 she deiionnci'd tin* " Vanke«'s:" and said, amon^' other thinj^s, " We have 
 acconnts of the battles in Iiichmond, but so hashed ii|) to snit nerthern 
 ])alates yon can make neither head nor tail of the alfair; but thion;;h 
 my si»ectacles J see (leneral (irant ami his well-whipped army with 
 their facu's toward Washington and their backs to the hated city of 
 Iiichmond, except those who take their summer residence at Lil)bv. 
 Tell the boys IJanks has nnule a splendid commissary to Dick Tayhyr's 
 army^and they were so unj^ratefiil as also to whip him, and very badly." 
 She also <;ave this woman another letter of similar cliaiacter, ad- 
 dressed to Airs, (liaham, a ])erson livin;;" in 3Ionl,i;()mery, Alabama, 
 within the lines of the ctmfederacy. 
 
 These letters were delivered on the LM)tli Alay, ISOI; and within a 
 few days after she was arrested by an olllcer of tln^ iirovostniarshars 
 bureau, committed to pris<m, and there (U'tained nntil .Inly, when she 
 was brouj;ht before a military commission and tried on the cliarj;e of 
 "holdin<>- correspondence with and ;ii\ in*;' intellijicnce to the enemy, in 
 violation of the Fifty-seventh Arti(!le of War,"tlu'speci(ications beiny' the 
 written letteis above named. She was found j'uilty of the charge except 
 thewords "and jiivinj;intelligenceto ;'' and was sentenced to ''beconliiKMl 
 duriii;; the war, at such place as the comniandinj'- general may direct." 
 The proceedinjjs and lindings of the commission were approved by 
 Major (leneral Ilnrlbut, then in eonnnand; but the sentence was so 
 modilied as to direct the claimant to bo sent into the so called confed- 
 eracy as an enemy; and the provost-marshal-general was charged with 
 the execution of the order. 
 
 ;; 
 
76 
 
 AMKRICAX-MRITISII CLAIMS COMMISSION'. 
 
 At tlu' fiinc of her triul New Oilcmis was still iimlci' iiiilitiiry yovorii- 
 iiu'iit, but the I'liilrd States ilistiict court had hccn rcor^'aiii/.cil iiiuhT 
 fTu<l;;c Diircll, and was in operation in that eity. No Htate trilmnals 
 WiHV, in o|i(M'ation, nor any local trihnnals, except under authority and 
 ]><'i'niission of the niilitaiy eouiinaiKler. 
 
 On the part «>!' tlu^ claimant it was <;ontended, iirst, that the claimant 
 was not amenahU' to military Juiisdiction, but must be tried, if at all, 
 bet'ori' tlio civil trii>uiials; second, that if amenabh^ to military juiisdic- 
 tion, tlu^ commission betbrt^ which she was tried was not a competent 
 tribunal; that by the FiCty-Seventh Article of War (2 Stat, at L.,;5(»(;) the 
 only military triimnal haviiij;' co<ifni/ance of such an ollence was a court- 
 martial, a tril)unal distiu<;t and di lie rent from a military commission ; 
 third, that tin liiidin;; of the nulitary (commission that slie was;;uilty of 
 the (;haiy<M'.\cept the words '' and ^-ivinj;- intt'lli;j;ence to," was in fact 
 an accpiittal, corresponden(!e with the (Miemy without ^iivinj;' him intelli- 
 }4iMic«> not bein;;' a military olVence or a violation of the article above 
 referred to ; fourth, that the commandin;^ onic(>r hatl no authority to 
 chanj;*^ the pnnishnu'Ut directed by the sentcMict; of the court, and sub- 
 Htitute banishment into the confederacy for imi>risonnu'nt ; that this 
 substitution was not with the consent of the claimant, and was not a 
 uiitij;ation of punishnu'iit ; fifth, that the letters were not :u fact sent 
 into the c()id'e(leracy, but were delivered by the messen^^ei' to the United 
 Stales military authorities in New Orleans, and that the evidence tended 
 to prove that the pretemled nu'ssenjier to whom they were delivered 
 WHS in fa(!t a spy and at^'cnt of the United States. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was contended that the otVence 
 char;;ed a.iiaiust theclainmnt was a nulitary olieiu'e purely, not cogniza- 
 ble by the civil tribunals; that the claimant, domiciled in a city within 
 the enemy's cmintry and recently ca[>ture«l from the enemy, held by 
 uiilitary power only, and jjoverned oidy by military authority, was 
 anuMiable to military jurisdiction ; that the tribunal belbre whicih she 
 was tried was a competent military tribunal, or^jfani/ed under sutlicient 
 military authority, and haviuj;' jurisdiction both of the sul>je«tt-mattcr 
 and of the person of the clainuint ; that irrespective of the i)rot;eedin<;s, 
 tindin<4', or sentence of the conunission, the coiumandinj; jjeneral had 
 ull authority to expel the claimant froai the <aty and seutl her within 
 the enemy's lines, on satisfactory evidence of her active sympathy with 
 the rebellion, and of her attempt nunely to communicate with the enemy, 
 and that the modilication and nutij;;atiou by the co!nmandin;;";jfeneral of 
 the punishment decreed by the military tribunal was one of lawful 
 power, and was not a matter of which the claimant could rij^htfully 
 complain. 
 
 The conunission ^ave an award in favor of the claimant for $1,500, 
 Mr. Comnnssioner Frazer dissentin/j:. This clainuint was the same per- 
 son whose orif>inal memorial (No. 8) was dismissetl by the comnussion 
 ou account of its improper and indecorous lauijuage. 
 
ACJ i:\T.S I.M'.POKT. 
 
 7T 
 
 Till- v:\sv of Colin .T. Nicolsoij, No. 'J.V5, may properly bi' reported in 
 (MHiiM'i'tioii with tli.it of .MiH«; Hill. Nictolsoii, ii native ol' Seotland, Ir.ul 
 beeiMlomii'iled in New Orleans since IH.-.ii. lie was arrested in that 
 city on the l."»th of Sept«'nil>er, isdl ; was detained in prison till tin* 
 L'L'd of Noveniher. ISCl, when he was hron;;hl before a ;;('neral eonrl- 
 iiiartial in that city and tried on the ehar^^es, llrst, of relieving,' tho 
 enemy with moiwy, hy investing nioiiey in honds of the Ttmlederate 
 States and transmittin;,' the same to Hnyland for sale there ; and, sec 
 mid, of holdin}-- forrespDiidenee with the enemy by h'tters passin;^ be,- 
 tweejj himself and one Violett, an enemy of the United Stat( s, resident 
 at Mobile; antl hi and by siu'h eorrespondenee devisiii;;- means tor 
 brinj,inj; cotton ont of the (•(.•••••deracy, and disposin;- of it lor the Joint 
 bciieht of himself and Violett, and for nejiotiatin;- and sellin;;' bonds of 
 1 he Confederate States. He was convicted on both char;,'«'s, ami was 
 sentenced to imprisonment at Fort Jellersoii, Kla., or at smh other place 
 as tlie coiinnandin;; j^eneral sliould direct, for live years. Tiie senti'nco 
 was approved bydeneral ('aid»y, commanding;, and the clainmnt wa^^ 
 committed to con tbiement at FortJellcrson, where he remained for about 
 nine mcmths, when he was pardoned by the President of the United 
 States. 
 
 The qnestions involved and the doctrines maintaim-d by the respect- 
 ive counsel in the (;,ise of AUss Uiil wen; ur;ied upon the c((mmissi(m in 
 tliis case. The connsid for the (-lainmnt turther contemh'd that the 
 dealinj;' in bonds (»f thi' enemy in Now Orleans and transmitting- them 
 thence to Hnjiland for sale was not a '■ relievin;;' of the enemy with 
 money,'' or in any manner a fiivinj;' of aitl to the enemy, and that tin? 
 correspondence of the (dainmnt with \'ioletL involve«l no ai«l <ti- comfort 
 to the (Miemy, j;ave no information to them, and constituted no military 
 otk'iKui. lie cited the first Jirticle of the treaty between the United 
 States and (Ireat Ibitain of ."Id duly, lS<>r>, (8 Stat, at L. ;) also :\Iilli- 
 {jan's case, (4 Wall., 2:) Ki-an's case, (."» Blatchford, C. C. K., .•JliO;) the 
 Venus, (L' Wall., L».V.» ;) the Circassian, (<V., ITiS;) the Oiuichita cotton, 
 ((» id.,'>'M ;) Copp«'ll vs. llall, (7 /</., r)42;) Thorington vs. Smith, (8 /</., 
 12;) the (irapeshot (!) jV/., 12!>.) 
 
 The memorial clainu-d 8~>00,()l)0 damajyc?. The claim was disallowed 
 by the commission, Mr. Commissioner (luruey dissentinj;. 
 
 In the case of James McVey, No. 20S, the clainmnt alleged that he 
 was twice arrested. It appeared that the first arrest was within the 
 enemy's lines, when he was detained for some four weeks to prevent his 
 C'ommuincation with the enemy. The second time he was arrested while 
 in the act of carrying goods across the lines from the enemy's <;ountry, 
 and was held in confinement several weeks. Ills claim was unanimously 
 disallowed. 
 
 f 
 1 
 
 )■ 
 
 il: 
 
 if 
 
 Substantially similar to this last case, in regard to the character of 
 the arrest, were the cases of Isaac Miluer, JTo. 207, iu which an award 
 
78 
 
 ami;kic.».\-!<hitisii claims commismox. 
 
 was iijiiflf ill Ciivor of the cliumant for jtropcrty, Init iiicliidin^jj tiotliiii'; 
 ior tlu> allt'ji('<l an<'.s(; vl' Samiu'l Sii!i|»s(Hi, No. iMT. wliu-li was miaiii- 
 iintiisly ilisaliowctl ; olioliii ("ait'W, No. 'Jl'l, wliicli was disallowcMi, Mr. 
 Coimni isioiHT (ImiH'.v (lisst'iitiii,L; : of llciii-y F. Wliiti', ^"o. l',;."., wliicli 
 was iiiiaiiiiiioiisly (lis.dluwrd ; ami of .lohii (laic, No. L'lT, in wliicli tlwro 
 was an awa"' foe |iio|K'ity, Inii iiulmliiig iiolliiii^ on arcount of tlic 
 arrest or iiiiinisomiicut. 
 
 In the case of Josi'pli \V, Scott. No, J-*;:, ilic claiiiiaiit, domiciled at 
 •lacUsoiivilic. l-'la., was tlicro ancstcd l\v order of llie conimaiidii!;;' oOi 
 eer in No\-eiiilter, iSlil, on I lie cliariic of di>loyalty. and ilefaiiicd in eon- 
 tiiieiiieiit for sonic tliree iiioatlis. .iacksonvillc was an inland town, on 
 ;lic Saiiu .loliii s lfi\er, wliicli came into tlie hands of the I'niled States 
 lor<'cs ill I'clti iiaiy. i>i(U, ai!<l hdin that time In the close of the wai was 
 ociMipied l>y them: luit the rcitcl forces, m<>st oi the time, were within 
 its immeilialc vicinity. 
 
 On the part of the I'liit'.'. States it was insisted that the military 
 x'o.iimander was necessarily investeil with ahs(>lii!e power lor the control 
 <»fthecity: and that it was his duty to take such measures as should 
 )u-eveiit inliahitaiits di.>!oyally disposed from coinmunieatiii;; w ith the 
 enemy; and that iiolhia;^ in the case i>l .Mr. Scott showed an aliu.se of 
 this aiithoiity. 
 
 All award was made in favor of the claimant in respect of prop, 
 erty taken lis the United Stales li'ooi»s, but it jiielmh-d iiolliiny; Uh' 
 imprisonment. 
 
 Ill il'e <'ase of .lames T. >hinnie. No. LM."». claimant had emharked at 
 Mew ()rh«aiis in A.ii;;ust, Istil, on lioanl a >teamer lor .Matamoras, 
 .Mexi(!o, with the machinery for ereetiiijj; a saw-mill at tliat phu-e. The 
 steamer was st(tpped at I'ort .Jaeksoii on flie eliar;;«' of haviii;j eiuitra- 
 l>aml ;;oo'ls ; i< hoard intended iiu' Texas, l»roii;4ht back to New Or- 
 leans, and the claimant was there detained i>y the military authorities 
 lor two days Oil board the steaimi, and for twch e hours i'l the military 
 rrisoii at that city. It .ippeared that, while he was in <-oiiliii('ment, lli^ 
 trunk onboard the sii-aue'r was broken open, either by the )u'o\ost- 
 t:;iiartl or in coDM'oifiice of their iu';;li}.jenee, aiul moiu'y, wcariii;; ap- 
 parel, and other Ui iiele.s were .stolen fr«un it. On eomplaiiil made to 
 MaJor-(icneral ("aiiby, in eotniuaitd of the city, an oidei' was mad<' by 
 liim declai in;; these ( raiisaclioiis, if t rue. ' j be i-xeeedinyly disci-editable 
 to the };uar.ls, and direct in,n' the provoMt inarsliel to take measiires to 
 bri'ijtj the otleiiders to justice. .\ii invest iy;at ion was ordered, but flip, 
 olVetiders did not appear to have be«'U discovered, ami no rei»aratioii was 
 made to the claimant. 
 
 On the pari (if the I'liited Slates it was ur«red that the arrest arid de- 
 tention wcie lawful ami reasonable lor the purpose of iiupiiry as to the 
 v'.iarat'ler of the ve.ssel, and that the I'nited States were not liable to 
 retlaiiialioii for tlie theft "<f the elainiitnt's property. 
 
A(ir.NTS KKI'ORT. 
 
 79 
 
 An :nv;iiil \v;i.s iiiiMh' in favor of the clainiaiit for ^l.riK), in wliiih all 
 tlu' coininissioniTs joint'd. 
 
 in tin' case (»f Snsan !». .lackson, Xo. '_'."», (he clain.ant, in Itclialf of 
 ImtscU and her four niinnr cliildrcr, idaiincd tlania^^cs foe ilic arrest of 
 .lolin .iackstiti, t Itf linshand of in> claimant, at Knowillc, Tcnii.. and 
 Ills hanislnncnt wiiliin the rnrniy's lint-s, w itii his fainiiv , in .Iannar\ , 
 l.stil. It appt'an' I ll'at Dr. -laiUson. the lin>l»;!iiid. had hcen a resident 
 of Kin»\\ilh' for sinne veais and nnlil alter tin- ItreaUinj; <Mit of tin' war ; 
 that lie had sent his fa' iily to Mnj,dand in An;:ns|. l.-tU, :iiid himself 
 lolhi\ve<l them in .Iniie. iSdi'; that he returned to New York ;i Oetohel, 
 IsilL', and in .laimars. isii',, haviii},'- obtained the iMupcr pei niissioii, I'e 
 tnined to Knowiiie Itn- tiie alh'jie<l ]inr|Mise of dis|)o,siii;L; »>• Ids piopeily 
 there. Insiead ol disposing; of his propeilv he remained al Kiiowille, 
 atnl there eiii«-red into trade. !»' I: lietoic his departure lor llii^^land 
 and alter his return, in ISii.;, he had lieen an open and aei i\ e sy m pa t hi /.er 
 with the rebellion, deiioiii'ciiiii the Cnited Stales ( io\ ernineiit and en- 
 eonra;:iii;4 ami aiding the rebels (low n to tin' surrender of Kiiowille to 
 the riijted States forces in September, iSll;;. I')\ idence was also ;:;iveii 
 on fl'.e pari of iIm- I'nited States showin;.( condnct e\iiieiii;; a hostile 
 s|(iril towanlthe I'liited Stales (io\ eminent. < )ii the JIMli .laniiaiy, 
 ]S(U. the follow in;;' notice was addressed to him byCeiieial l"o>ter's 
 ]novost marshal : 
 
 Owiiijr In viiiir |iii-<islfiit fli'.liiviilty t" flu- (J(i\ cnimfiit nC tiic I'liilnl SihIi-h, it |i;ik 
 
 IhmMI ill ri'.li iI Id simmI ynll mill Villi I rillllli.x Niilll ll III' I III' i rili'l.li lillr.i. ^ nil Will, llliTC- 
 I'ni'i-. Ill- |irr|iaii'il til .stall nil Irrciv in*;; llll'tlirl Imliri-, 
 
 The liuther notice was served on the .lOth dannary. reipniin;;" him to 
 lie reads to depait on the .'hi l''ebrnary, on which day .laci^son ai-d his 
 family were s<'nt thronnh the rebel lines under a ila;; ot tince. 
 
 An awaid was made in faviU' of the chiimant in respeci of propi-rty 
 «)f her own appropriated to the nsiMif the ('iiited States, but iiiclndin;^ 
 mtthiii;; by reason (»f the arrest uiid baidshinent complained of. 
 
 -loseph .M. I'. Nolan, No. 1*7'J, was anested by the military jiroNost- 
 inarshal at Saint Lonis. Mo., in October, IS(H, on the (•liar;,''e of disloy- 
 alty to the Iniled S'ales. and of havin},' written a h'tter to an alb'^fcd 
 eiiem> of the I nited States in Canada, |i;ivinn information as to mili- 
 ta:y inincmenis. lie was detained in pri.son at Saint Konis till .hine, 
 1S(»-*. then I'liiisferred to the militaiy prison at .Mtoii, 111., and theie 
 det.uned till .\n;,nist, l.st;.>, when he was linally dischar;;ed. Ilisi lease 
 was olVered him in December, istil, and on oiu* or tw(» other o«'casions, 
 on Iii.s ^Mvin;; his parole to do lu) act nnlriendly to the Cnited States. 
 This piirole he refused to n'wr. (ireat and nniieeessary hanlsliips in 
 eonnec'lion with his «'i)iillnetnent were alle;;ed on the^ part of theciaiui- 
 ant ; and the proof conclusively showed that the prison in which he was 
 conliiu'd at Alton \\.\n wholly unlit tu its ai»i(oiiitinenl.s ami sanitary 
 
 m 
 
 
80 
 
 AMKUICAN-HKITISH CLAIMS C'OMMISSIOX. 
 
 cDiiditioii tor tlic conliiioiiKMit of prisoiiors. cspcciiiHy tor llic liir;;t' iimii- 
 bcr there coiiHimmI ; iiiid that at times the treatment ol the prisoners, 
 ineludin;;' tlie ehiimant, was harsh and cruel. 
 
 An iiward was made in favor ot" the claimant for ><S,(;oi), all tho <'om- 
 mission joinin;;. I am advis«>d tliat the majority of the commission, at 
 least, held tlie original arrest of the claimant and his reasonable deten- 
 tion jiisiilied : hat that his Ion;;' conlinement and improper treatment 
 dnrinj; it were not Jnst ilied. 
 
 Tn the case of .Alary Xolan, No. L'7.'», the clainnuit alleu:e<l that she was 
 arrested at Saint Louis l»v a «leteetive in the emi)h)y ot the I nited .Stat«'.s 
 anthoiities in September, IStil; taken before the pioxost marshal at 
 Saint l.onis, and eotnmitted by him ti> the Chestnnt sticet piison, where 
 she was detained for an entiicday; and that she was theic subjected 
 to im|>roper treatment. She daimeil dama.u'es •i'lO,)*!*!*. The evidence 
 jn her casi^ .NJiowed that sue was l>ronyht bef(»re tlie pi'ovosl niarshal,, 
 apparently npon a snlipu'iia, to testify in a case before iiim ; that 
 she refused to testify, ami dclied and insnlted the ollicer, who committed 
 her to the city prison, wheie she was detained foi- nine or ten hoars. 
 Her alle^Mtions of impr«»pei' treatnuMit were not sustained. The com. 
 ndssiiui unanimously disallowed her claim. 
 
 In the case of .btlni I'. I'arr, No. L'S.~», the claimant, a resident of Nash 
 ville, Tenn., tiicn in possession of the rebel forces, passed thrcMiuh the 
 lines into Indiana, and thence to liullalo, N. V., in Ortoiter, isiil. He 
 went thence to New Voil: City, where he boui^ht some clothin^i", shoes, 
 medicines, and olhei' ;;oods, ami ret ur net I thence to liullalo, u here he wa.s 
 arrest CI 1 iui mediately on his arrival, on the LMMh of Octidter ; he was taken 
 to I'ort l-afa\elle in New York Ilaibor, there conliiu'd for about four 
 m(»nths, and was linally discharj^ed in I-'ebruary, isdU, without a trial. 
 
 .\n award was made in his favor Utv •'^l,SO(>, in which all the commis- 
 sioners Joined. I am adxiscd that the awanl proceeded on the ;,Mound 
 that thou,L:h his ori;;inal arrest and reasonable detention were lawfid, 
 Ills detentnm for four months without trial was held not Justitied. 
 
 In tin' case of IJichard Ilall, No. .'US, tin- claitnaut was arrested in 
 Maryland, on the litli of .March, ISdt; was brou;;ht belbre a military 
 commission on tlu' <'har;;(^ of having uidawfnily passed from the loyal 
 States thr((ii;;h th(> Federal and coid'ederate military litu's into the State 
 «»f \'ir;4inia, ami there held ille^^al intcrcourst' with the I'lUMules of the 
 liiiiled Sta.es, ami then returned throuj,di Ihelini's in ihesanu' manner. 
 The military commissicm found him guilty (d' the oiVem-e char<:ed, and 
 sentenced him to imprisonment in Fort M(dienry, Maryland, tor the term 
 o\' tour mold lis, and to pay a line ot !^(i,(KM>, and to be imprisoned until 
 tiie tine should be paid. lie wa.s accordin^dy imprisoned for the four 
 months, and for twenty days thereafter, when lie paid the i^tJ, (HH) and 
 was ndeased. 
 
AGKN'T 8 KKPOKT. 
 
 81 
 
 Oil tlio piirt of tlic Haiiuiiiit it was all(>;,'iMl that liis visit to Virjiiiiiiii 
 was witlioiit itnlawfiil intent ami for iuni»ct'nt and social |iiii|>ost'S, Tliis 
 ali<';^atitin was answcn-d on tlu' part of tin- Cnitcd States l»y proof tliat, 
 tln' claimant took orders from tlie confetliTate militaiy antiioiities at 
 Ivielimond fur military snjjplies, wliicli lie iiiidertoidv to piireliasi^ for 
 tlieiii, and that he returned thron>,di the lines witii the purpose of exe- 
 (Mitiii;; such orders. The eoiiiisel for the claimant elai'ned that the mili- 
 tary eommissidti was without Jiirisdi(!tinii, eitiiijjj the <rase of .Milli;;;!!!, 
 (t Wall.,!'.) The eiiiinsci (»f the Tiiited States claimed that the olVeiuie 
 was purely a military one and coj;iii/„il>le by the military trilumals under 
 the .\rticles of War. 
 
 The eomaiissiiui (Mr. Coaunissioiier Fra/.er disseiitiiij;) mach' an award 
 in favor of the elaimaiit for>(J,!>^t. I am advised that this amount was 
 made up of the sum of *"i,(Htt>, part of the line of .*<i;,(MH> imposed, 
 wiiich the commission deemed e\ce>isive, reduced from I'nited Slates 
 <Mirrency in which it was p.iiil to j;old, ainl iiileri'st addeil to make up 
 the amount of the award. 
 
 in the case of Mewi'llyii (^rowthcr, Xo. ">!L'. the claimant was arrested 
 in llaltimore in .Inly. 1S(»?, taken before ('iiltmd l''isii. then provost mar- 
 shal there, and detained in conlineiiieiit a4 the (lilmore Hous(> ftn about 
 ei;;lit hours. The arrest ;.'rew (Uit of a ipiarrel between theclaimant ami 
 two ofhei persons at a IimJcI ii Baltimore, of which complaint was mado 
 to ("((hmcl Fish, and the claimant was char;;'!'!! with usin.i;- seditious and 
 disloyal laiiijua^e. lie alle,';'ed thut ('oloiiel !'"'ish, on the ariMi;iiimeiit of 
 theclaimant lu'lbre him, iisid lan;;;iia'4e aluisively and indecently vio- 
 Init towaid him ami toward his country and (J leen. lie (rlaimed d.im- 
 a;;es !i(ll>,(>i)0, and the commission unanimously awarded him the sum <d' 
 
 i 
 
 ^ 
 
 In the case of .lolm M. Vernon, Xt). .'{(»l, the claimant al]e,";cd that hc^ 
 had always bi'cii «lomiciled in I'i i;i;'laiid, the country of his natisify. It 
 ap|»eareil. however, that he had resided in the Tiiited Slates most of 
 the time since isp.l, and had l»een t here jMiu't'-Tcd in trade, lie was in 
 Muropeat the iMcakiny out of the war, but ret ii rued to the I'nited States 
 in .liine, lSi|,aud tliencM' pass'il into tiic coafe icr.icy, rem lining; there, 
 with the exiu'ption of a temporary absence in the latter part of ISiJl, 
 till January, ISd.i. 
 
 lie alleged tliat he had always maintained his neiiti'ality between tho 
 rnited .Si ucsaiid t he (!on federate j^' ) vera men t : tli at in .Ianuar.\ , Isii.JJio 
 sailed from the port of ('liiirk's'oii in the steamer lluntr«'ss, owned Ity him- 
 self and laden with cctton, principally owimmI l>y Iiiiiisell, for Nassau. N. P.; 
 succej'ded in p.i.ssiii;; out throii^ih the blockade, but on the day alter hi.s 
 depart UK', and upon the \\\>.',\i seas between Charleston and Nassau, tho 
 st«-amer took lire .m I was destroyed, the claimant with the master ami 
 vrvw CSC .'tin-r in two shii»*s boiitw. These boats were puked up by a 
 G II 
 
 i!?' 
 
 [1 
 
82 
 
 AMKlilCAN-ItlJlTISII CLAIMS COMMISSIOX. 
 
 Uiiitci! States \v;irv('s-cl mi Dip occmm, on (lie IStli .Tanniiry, nnd tlic 
 ('I;iiiii;int was caiiii'd to Hilton lloail, S. (.'., IIhmc transicnrd to aii< tlici 
 vt'sscl, canit'd to New Vuik, examined het'oie the Cnited States niarsliid 
 there, and eoniinitted to l"'urt Lalayette, in New Voii; Harbor, in which 
 foit, andal'terwai'dsin I-'oit Warren. IJoston Ilarhoi', Im» was kept eonlined 
 till OclolnT, lS(ir>, when he was released upon his written pled;>e that he 
 would ''sail tVoni iSoston, .Mass., liy the eailiest opportunity, and h'a'.e 
 the l/'nited States of America, not to return without the special pernus- 
 sion of the I'resident there(d." 
 
 Jle alle.c;ed lar;;'e losses resultiuj;' fi'om his imprisonment, by the waste 
 and (h'strueti(»n of his pro|ierty in the Si)utheni States durin;^' his im- 
 prisonment, iiiid in eoirseqiii'iiee of his hisini'ss hi'inydepriveil of his per 
 isonal attention ; and claimed dama;;es, in all, to the amount of ,C {.°>S,i:;.'i. 
 
 The proofs<m the part ot the Cidted States show<'d that, up to his de- 
 parturefrom Charh'ston. in duly, isi;:;, he had been lai;4t'ly and actively 
 eii^^aj'ed in rendering;" aid to llie confederate <>-overnment in its war 
 ii;;ainst the I'nited States; that he individually, and as a partner in 
 tlie linns of Vernon vV: Co., and \'eriion, .James ^V Co., had entered into 
 lai'^je (Diitracts with the coiifcderate n'overnment lor the supply of arms, 
 ammunition, and military su[)plies, includiii;,' twelve lar;;' • rilled can- 
 non, and laij;e quantities of* ;j:uii- bands, rilles, pistols, powder, army 
 clothing'; shoes, blankets, »S:c. ; that lu^ had been en<ia;;('d in the man 
 ufaeture of arms<lmin^' the \var, at Wilmington, N. C., Ibr the beiielil 
 of the confederate jj[overnment. At the time of his capture some t»f his 
 contracts were Ibund upon him: thes(> contracts also ;4i.intiii;; to his 
 Jinn, on the part of the conleih'rate ^•overnnuMit, cert.iin pii\ ile;4('s of 
 imrchasin<>- r'otton and tobacco, and transiiortinij: the same without 
 hindrance, and e-xportiiij;' them to all ports except those of tlu^ United 
 States, with onvoy if desire<l. (Ji)rrespondence ensued between I<oi'd 
 Ijyons, Her Majesty's minister at Washin^^ton, and Mr. Seward, the 
 Secretary of State of the Cnited States; and upon s;il)iiiission to Her 
 .Majesty's le;:ation of the prools lound iquMi thi' [Kison of the claiaiant 
 further intervention in his l»ehalf was declined. 
 
 Mr. Stuart, lilt a Her Majesty's acliny; niitiister at Washiii«jton. on 
 the 2.'{d Septemlwr. 1S(;;{, adtUossed to .Mr. N'einon th. foUow in-j lettvi : 
 
 Silt: I !>•;.? to inloriu yon, in n-ply (<• \<tiir litter ol tlio 1 ■• li iiwrint. thn\ 1 latflv 
 ri'cci\<vi i'.<lis|tit- It tVum I':irl |{ti>Mil, wtal iiij; tliiit y-nn casi' IukI Il.^j lull y «-Misi(lcrf<l 
 l)y llcr .Miijrsi \ H j;,)ViTiinu'nt ill <<>iii<iiniil':Ui(iii w irli tht* \»\\ •!<'' ^is «>( tlic rrowM. 
 
 It ii|)|>citi'H to lli'i' .^lit,j<■^tJ'^^ gwvt'fuiiMiii. jinlnui;; lt\ till' (!\iii«f*ui, tN'iMliii'i<«l, tijiit. y»iii 
 are a Itoni IJiitislt Mili.i'M-t. •■mt\ it il»»«'?i iiu» a|>|Mar that yrtu li*vi> i*l>ctMu<Ml iiattti-a-li/.a- 
 tioii ill till' I'nitfil Staffs >»i- '•.\ci-.-is.>tt ymHli.a. pciMu-^i-s !i^ a ti'i/<'.i, 
 
 Itiit taking oIIk'I <- rrii'iistaiK'cs iiitw cousi-a< ration, ami nioic p»i'iMi-ii}i»rlT th:it \ on 
 hiiv« i<li'iiiili('<l yoursi'ir in tii" sti'K most uiiian r willi l.lin titMiiiH' i»t ih«' mh-i'iiMimI 
 ('otitiMlcralo .*»(atiH, iiml tliat. you *■!•«, w I*-* talki-u, afMin!I> •I'iiuni'd in ri»»i<li'riim 
 inatci'ial assist iiiiiM- to tin- ;{()V»'.n»«»"'it of Ht-^ Htatt-n, iil'!il»<»H'.jli iltiiiviii;; a coniimM'cia! 
 profit fnun MO <loin>j, H"" M.y«'Hrv*:;;.iv<H"iiBitsrii .in- '»! i»<.i»ioii nliai thf I'uitiMl Siat<*s 
 (liiviiniiiiMil all' JiiMiiilt'il in troatiiiK you »< .-» */»»>•»» «. iHi}»iii'cMt. 
 
 Till' I \ idi'iKtf, miMi-.ivci, sli(»w.> ilial ;:!lluinjjli, «.u. uig a rt'Mtlctice at' I wenty-tlu'ot' 
 
AOKNTS KKI'OKT. 
 
 S3 
 
 iiiid tlic 
 
 ) jui' tlicr 
 
 «; inarsliiil 
 
 ill tvliicli 
 
 coiitiiH'd 
 
 y that lir 
 
 lllltl \VA\V 
 
 il in'iiiiis 
 
 tlio wash' 
 '^ liis iiu- 
 )t' his j)t>i 
 ,C{;Js,i;i:;. 
 to liis (Ic 
 I aclixfiy 
 
 I its war 
 lartiicr in 
 iTt'd into 
 \- oi" arms, 
 illt'il can 
 ilcr, army 
 
 the tiiaii 
 \n\ hi'iH'til 
 (ino of liis 
 ii;; to his 
 kilo;;('s of 
 
 », WltilOIll 
 
 h»^ Uiiit«'(l 
 
 (•I'll I,oi<l 
 
 wai'il, thf 
 
 )ll to Il«'l' 
 
 t',lai;«ant 
 
 ii«rton. on 
 iifi; letter: 
 
 i.ii I Iat<'l\ 
 
 > « 'Mlsidclffl 
 
 tlif Criivvt'i. 
 
 I'd, tliiit yi'ii 
 
 iiatimiuli/.u- 
 
 •^r t.))at v oil 
 
 *H- xil-Cilll<'ll 
 
 II riMMlcrinu 
 I'DiiiiKt'i'cia! 
 litfd Siat<-H 
 
 wtinty-threi' 
 
 1 
 
 ymirs ill tli(^ SontlnTii Stiitfi.", villi ]i:iiil (iccasiiMiiil visits to Kii ;,'!;« ml. yon liad no iii- 
 ti'iitioii of irtnruiii'j- to iii'riii:in<'iit riMdciicr in your ii;iti\c i iiiil ly. and thai \>>n wfic 
 inaclically and ,lrj'(ulj a \sillinj; lili/.ni of tlic Conlrdcralc Stahs. cn^a^cd in «(|niii 
 jiiiijj tliidr {limy. 
 
 Iter .M.iji'sty's jjovcnmicnt, tlu'rcforc. considfr, nmli'i- (In' I'iiinni-^taiuM's, yonr ifli-asn 
 camiot lit" ilaiiiird as a matter oC linlit iiificly JMcansr yon wi'ii- lunn a lliiti-.li snlij; i-l, 
 tint Karl IJiissidl di'sir.'s that Uir Maji-sty's h';,'alion .siionld. m-virlh 1. -is, .-mh :i\or to 
 jiiTsiiaih' thi- I'niird Slates ( Juvriiinii'iil to initiL^ate or slioitcn your i ajiti^ iiy. 
 
 I aci-iircUnjily ri'iinMi'iit>'il to th* .S •cn'tary of .St.iti-. on tip- H'lh in -trif, th.it it. 
 would 111- a f;rali|ii'ation to Ilrr MaJ. •sty's ^fov.-rniiiiMit to learn that ymir e.iiilivily Irni 
 liet'ii iiiiti;;ated or shortened tliron^h the (deim my of the I'niied States (i.ivei iimeiii, 
 and your ease is eiiiisei|iie!itly a;;ain under eonsideialioii. 
 
 I>'iom that lime luitli ller .Majesty's uovenimeiit luiiformly ami con- 
 sisti'iitly (leelineil ;iiiy iiiteiiialioiial iiiterCeiriiei' lor the lUMtei'tioii of 
 .All'. N'eiiion, and »liscl;iimeil all pretence ol rio-ht to iiitei\eiie in his hc- 
 hall'. Sir I'lcileiiek llruci', tlieii !Iei' .Majesty's ministerat NVashinoion, 
 as late as liHIi O/loUer, ISi;"», said in a letter to Mr. N'ernoii, in 
 r. 'Spouse to an application riMiii 'liiii: ''.My instiin'tions proliibit my 
 iiiteireiiii;i in your liehall." 
 
 A lahored ar;;"iimeiit was tiled on Itehalfof the claimant. 1>\ which it was 
 coiit<'iided that the iiiipi isoiiineiit of ihc claimant without trial was utterly 
 iiiijiistilialfle ; that it was proloii;icd in a mniiner iie\er contemplaled hy 
 the l>ri(ish aiithoi iti<'s; that while under r«>straiiit his tieatineiit w as inde 
 teiisihle, and that the order of banishment from the I'liiled Slates, and 
 the siiiiseipient refusal to revoki* it, were oat ra^i'es aoiinst all law rnd 
 justice. That the dei-isimi of ller .Majest.\'s oovernmeiit, Just it'\ in.o' the 
 treatment of the claimant hy the United Slates ('lovernmeiit as a //<^ 
 /(trio liellio'eiciit, was erroneous ; that the condition of the claim ml, at 
 the time (d' his capture, was tint of a neutral alien eiio-,|o',.d in commer- 
 cial trans, ictioiis only with the conleder.ite ^fovcriiment, and that such, 
 tiaiisaciioiis were not criminal and did not depri\c him of his neutral 
 character. Tiiat even if he had pnn ioiisly been an enemy by domicile, 
 hi' had, wlicM he oiidtarked from ('(uiihston on the l[uiitress, left tiie 
 ciMintrN of his lormer domicile w ithoiit tlic intention ot returniii;>, and 
 his native domicile, native alle<.Mance, and native nlntiis had thereiipou 
 instantly reverted to him. and that the ('.ci-ision of Iler Majestv's o,iv. 
 crnitu'iit. Justifying; his detention by the liiiled States, and li'tusin;,' to 
 intervene in his behalf, cmdd not be taken as prejudicin.ii" the claimant's 
 individual rij,dit to ret himation under the rules of international law. 
 Tlu'conn.sel for the claiiiiaiit cited, in siippHt of these proposition <. tlu> 
 followin;;' antlKM-ities : 4 l»lackstoHe's Com.. 7i'» : Ilalleck's Liw of \Vai> 
 c. :.'!>, § ;'i,p. (i<(."i; 2 Kent's Coin., l!>; Inolis r. The Sailor.s" Siiii;: llarlHU', 
 :i Pet., <>!»: Vaitcl, lib. 1, e. IL'. § lilS; J IJrown Civ. .^ .\dm. Iaw,r. 7. p. 
 .SL'T; The Veiiu.s, S ('ranch, L'TS; The <'ases of .\dlani. Xo. |l»; Doyle, 
 No. Mi, juhI T(m;;iie, No. V.), decith'd by this conimissi(^ii ; Calvin's case, 
 7 Coke; (lardnet's Inst. Int. Law, pp. I |H, IS'.J; lavin^rslon /•. .Maryl.ind 
 Ins. Co., 1 Cram h, oi'J; Wheattnrs Klements, parti, i;. 1, pp. .*»(;! to 
 
84 
 
 AMKllICAN-lJUITISII CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 I ! 
 
 5(1!); Iliillcck, «'. 'Jl, § IS, p. 'Mi; id., v. L'!), § .*{, p. ;{1."»; 1 Koiit's Com., 
 § r>, p. 7); Story's C'tnitiift of Ijiiws, c. .">, § -7, p. (>1 ; \VooI.s»',\'.s Int. Law, 
 p. 100; 1 Diicroii Ins., pji. ."»iri, ."jLMI ; The Fijukh's, S Crancli, 2S(>, s. c. 
 1 tlall. ,(".<'. K.,(ill; Tlit'l)osH«'rinaiios,iMVli('ar.,77; T1k« Fi itMidscliall, 
 .{ /■//., II; Tlu^ Uiiiti'd States is. (Itiillcin, II II()\v.,(»i»; T\u'. Ann (liven, 
 I (Jall.,C. (". I{., L'7:); The St. liawience, /'/., L5iJ7 ; Catlin rs. (ilaildin;,', I 
 Mason, .">ns ; The State rs. Ilalh'tl, S Ala. Itcp., I.V.»; ;! IMiillinkore, § «.">, 
 p. 1LM>; id., § 1, p|). 101, (iOl ; Twiss, § M, \). S.; ; De I5ai<;li, e. 2, p. 'M ; 
 VVestlake, e. .5, § 10, |). ;{!>; L' Wildnian, pp. ].">, l.'{ ; I id., p. ."»7 ; The In 
 
 dian Chiel", ;{ Koh., 1-'; The Ftinseo, /./., :i[ ; The Main .v, L' /</., :;-".' ; 
 
 Tlie Ocean, /</., 01; The \'iryinia, '> id., 1)S ; Ijoswell's Lessee cti. Otis, 1> 
 
 I low., ;>;{(). 
 
 The eoinniission unanimously disallowed the claim. 
 
 In the ease of Willianj IJ. I'oiwood, No. ."JlH, the claimant, a Hritish 
 subject, domii'iled iu I''n.uland, in O.'toher, lS(il, landeil at New York 
 from the steamer City of Wasliin;;ton from (^)neenstown. He was 
 arrested immediately on landin<.; from tlie steamer, on inlormation that 
 he had, lioth in Liverpool and on hoard the steamer upon his passa;>e, 
 expresscti himself as a warm trii-nd (»f the ichellion, ami that he was 
 connected with a I'trm en;>'a^ed iu runninjL>° the blockade, and upon 
 the suspicion that his visit to New York was for the purpo>e of pro. 
 motinj,' corres| oaiU'Uce with the enemy. He was detained at the otlice 
 of the chi«'f of polict^ in New \ Ork for some three or four hours, his 
 ju.son and l)a;i,na<i(' examined, and he was Iheii discharged. He 
 «'laimed, as (lama^cs for his arr«'sl, jC"),(UM). The commission disallowetl 
 hi« claiai, Mr. (Joinmissioner (Jurney dissentin;,'. 
 
 In the cases of Stephen .larman, No. tIS; lloliert IJowdeii, No. 11!); 
 Samuel .I»>seph Ui-d^'ate, N»f. iL'O ; and .hthn Henry Kllsworth, No. 121 ; 
 tlu' elaimiints were respectively the master and passengers o;; the 
 !»ritish st<'amship INtciholV, captured as pii/e of war liy the United 
 States steamer N'aiider >ilt, near the Island of St. Thomas, iu Feb- 
 ruary, ISi!,;. The ( .. " of the I'eterhotf will be more lully reported 
 under a siilisecpient head. I>owdtii, l{ed;iale,and Fllsworth were ij-spect 
 ively in eharj;(^ of portions of tlu" carf^o of the FeterholV, <'ither as 
 owners or cousiffiiees, or as ajjents tor owiieis <ir eonsi^iuees. The 
 IVterholl" was taken, on her eaptnie, lirsl to Key \\ est and thence to 
 New York, where she was lll»elled in the Cnited Stales disliiet couit. 
 .larman. F»owdeu,and Ifcdyate were taken with the \cssel to New Voik. 
 and detained till their depositions, in juriKirntnito, weie tal»»'U. when 
 they were dischar;4e<l. lOllswoith was disci larj.M'fl at Key \V<'sr, without 
 bein;; tiiken to New York .>r examined as a witiw*«s. lie was detained 
 on board the l*eterli«»t!" from her caj'turc. 2.1th lM'l)iuary, till the L'.ltlj 
 March, ciuliteen dn\«« after her arrival at Key West. Jarmau, IJowden, 
 )ind IJedyate w»re «'\ainined as witnesses in New- Yoik on the 1st day 
 of April, the fourth day after the arrival of the reterholf in New York 
 
 II 
 
 hi 
 
 3 
 
ACEXT.S UKl'ORT. 
 
 K} 
 
 Mit's Coin., 
 8 Int. Law, 
 I, li.SO, .s. c. 
 U'lnlscliall, 
 U)ii (JriM'ii, 
 il<ui(liii^% I 
 I more, § ■'^•"», 
 
 ;•. L', p. ;5i; ; 
 
 >1 ; Tlu' In 
 Li /./., :','-2 ; 
 ; IS. Otis, it 
 
 1, 11 Fliitish 
 Ni'w York 
 
 lie Wits 
 
 latioii tliitt 
 is |>assa;4(', 
 lat lit^ was 
 and ii|ion 
 ts<' of pro. 
 tlu' ollicc 
 lioiirs, his 
 i<i«'<l. He 
 lisallowed 
 
 , No. 11!); 
 , No. 42! : 
 ■s o;! tilt' 
 i»' United 
 : in 1m'1>- 
 
 reported 
 •V ies])t't't 
 
 either a>< 
 
 Harbor, and were respectively discharged immediately aftfir their exain- 
 hiation. 
 
 On the part of the elaimatits, respectively, it was contended that the 
 capture of the !*eterho(l' was nidawfnl, and the detention of these claim- 
 ants, respectively, was likewise nnwarrant»'d hy prize law. 
 
 On the part of the Tnited States it was contended that the IN'terhot! 
 was ri^fhtfnlly captured on justifiable cause, and that the detention of 
 these claimants as witiu>sses was Wiirranted by the law ami practice <»f 
 the prize court;; ar.d that as to ICIIsworth, his release at Key West 
 without examinatio!! as a wituesss, and without beiii;^ taken to New York 
 wheie the vessel was libelled, could not be consi«lere»l as an a^ijiravation 
 of his imprisonment, luu' as };ivin<; him any i'i<;ht of reclamation, whi(;h he 
 would not have had if taken to New York and examined as a witness, as 
 lie lawfully mij^ht have been. 
 
 The commission unanimously disallowed all the claims. 
 
 The ease of IMiilij) (leorjje Ueaumont Dean, No. Km, was of like char- 
 acter with the four last named. The claimant wns captured on board 
 the Uritish bri^f Djishinj; Wave, (whose (tase will be hereafter reported,) 
 oir the mouth of tlu' Kio (liand(^ IJivei'. in Novembei, IS*;,",. He was 
 rated as an able seaman on the brii;, thou^^h in fact a passen;^er ami a 
 son of one of the owners of the briy. lie was taken with the vessel to 
 New Orleans, where the vessel was libelled ; was examined as a witness 
 ill preparntnrio L*Sth November, ISO.'J, six <lays aft»*r the arrival of the 
 vessel at New Oilcans, and w;is then released. His memorial alle;»('d 
 that fi'om that timt' till the L*.'»d .Iidy, IS»;i, lie wiis "detained on parole 
 by the comntissionets of tin* I'nited States ( Jovernment "at New Orleans, 
 but his evidence showed no such detention or parole, and it appearcil 
 that his slay in New Orleans after his exainination Wiis a voluntary one, 
 for the purpose oflookin^j; after the iutep'sts (»f the owners of the vessel 
 and carjro. 
 
 His claim was unaniuKMisly disallowed i»y the <'ominission. 
 
 In the case of (;eor<re I'. (';mty. \o. 1 1.!. the cbiiimint was \\ P.ritish 
 subject, for several years ilomicilctl in Cent lal Anienci, but from March 
 to iN'ccmlu'r, ISd.'., tem|torarily resident in the cityof New York, en;;ay:ed, 
 as hi' alle;,'ed, in conimcrcia! «!i(erprises eonncctt'il witli Central Aineiica. 
 He was arrested in New York by the United States military autiioritics 
 on the eve of his departure for Nicarajjfua by steamer, LMth December, 
 ISt;;?; detained in a prison in the city of New ^ OrU for three dii\s. then 
 triuisferrcd to Fort Lafayette, and there conlined till the Utii March, 
 IStit. when he was dischar^^-ed without trial and without information of 
 
 the yroundsof his arrest, «'\cept the (,m lal statement that he had been 
 
 en;;ujred in aidinj; the enemies of the United States, or vi(>lalin;; iImj 
 tu'utrality laws and re;iidations. It appciireil th:it he was arrested in 
 company with one Dr. Sej,nir, in connection with whom he had been 
 
 If. 
 
 s|.. 
 
HG 
 
 AMKRICAN-nRrilSIl CI-AIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 W 
 
 (•n«,';ijf( (1 ill piircliiisiii;; arms, as was allc^^i'd l>y tlnMii, (or tlic state r<f 
 San Salvail<>i-,aii(l that tlir rit'ciiiiistaiiccsor the |Min-lias('aii<l slii|MiM>iit *>!' 
 thcsf aiiiis wen- such as to U'm\ to tlic sfioai,' siis|iicioii that tlit'.v wjmc 
 ill tact purchased and shipped lor the use of the <'onl'edei-ate ;^oveninieiit. 
 Shortly aCler Ids arrest he was lM'ou;>ht before a military eomndssion at 
 New York and interro^jatt'd as to his connection witli Dr. Se;;iir, find 
 purchase of arms made by him. .Most of these ipiestions ht^ refused 
 to answer, on the ;;round that lie liad " been advised not to compromise 
 hiiiiself or his friends in any sliapi* or manner." lie was thereupon 
 nMiianded to prison. The cliar<j;e that the arms were in any way desij^ned 
 to aid the enemies of the I'nited States was not siistaim'd by the proofs. 
 Tile claimant alle{;t'd lar;;i' i»ecuiiiary losses resullinj; from his imprison- 
 nieiit. 
 
 The commission imuh' an award in his favor for •■i<l.~>,70(), Mr. Com 
 iiiissioner Kra/.er dissenting;' on tlie question of ann>unt. 
 
 tlohn Tovell, No. M(», a IJaptist cleifiyman, was arrested at Nashville, 
 Ti'iin., on the !Mli November, ISlJi*, on the «-har;;e of disloyalty to the 
 United Slat«'s, and of having; in the course of a funeral oration delivered 
 at Nashville used lan;;ua;;(> sir(m.i;ly denunciatory of \\w military author 
 ;lies in charjic of .Nashville, and tendin;'' to incite disaltection and rebel 
 lion. Nashville was a town within the insurrectionary states, capture(l 
 i»y the I'liited Statt's in the sprinjj of ISIIU, and held by them as a mili- 
 tary post and under military ;>'overnnient at tlu^ time of the claimant's 
 arrest. He was detained in juison till the Hlh June, 180.J, and then 
 liaiiished into the conlederate lines. 
 
 The commission awarded him ■•(S.W), Mr. Coinini.ssi()ner Frazcr tlis 
 sentinjjf. 
 
 Henry 1*. Smith, No. t(M, a idiysician, domiciled at Louisville, Ky.. 
 within a State not in rebellion, was arrested at that place by tlu^ military 
 authorities of the United States, in .Inly, lS(i|,on a char};(M)f (Mnailatin;;' 
 tieasimable doi-uments, the d(»cumenlH in (juestion Iteinj; copies of a 
 Iiandsoinely printed phu'artl hi^>lily laudatory of the confederate (jeneral 
 ilobc! t l). liCe, as a patriot, (Miristian, and hero of nnfalteriii;;; iUiVotion 
 to tluty, »S:c. liouisville and the State in which it was sitiiaedt 
 <'oiitained a lar;>e proportion of sympathizers with the rebellion ; and it 
 was contended on the part of the United States that tlui circulation of 
 this iloiaiment by Dr. Smith was made with the direct purpose and in- 
 tent of {iivinj; ai^l to the rebel cause; that it was calculated togivesu(!h 
 aid, and that his iin|)risoninent and detention wt'io lawful military acts- 
 The claimant was imprisoned for about fourteen weoks, and was then 
 (lischarjjeil without trial. 
 
 The coinmission gave an awaril for $1,540, Mr. Connulssioner Frazer 
 dissenting. 
 
 i 
 
ACiKNTS K'KI'OUT. 
 
 87 
 
 lie sfatp of 
 liipiiiciit <it 
 
 Micy wtMc 
 jvt'iiimciit. 
 iiiiissioii iit 
 >*',Uiii', find 
 lir rt'liisiMl 
 iMnproiiiisc 
 
 tlM>r(>ii|M)ii 
 .V (l«'.si;;^m'(| 
 till' proofs, 
 i iiii]>risoii- 
 
 Ifohcrl INIi'ICfowii, Xo. I(i"., \v;ih in M;irt'li, I.SIJ'J. uliilo (MiiMloycd iis li 
 sliip ciirpciitcr in llii' sciviciMd' Mic riiilcd Shitcs (iovcniini'iit on ln)iinl 
 tlu' ^innliMiit licnton, on tin* Mississippi KiviT, near tin* nionili of 
 tlic Va/oo, air('st('<l by liic cotnniaiidin^' olliccr (d" f lie ;iiin l>oat, fonlincil 
 in tln^ Indd lor aluml i'kiii' <I i,\ s. tlicn rranslorn'd (o anotinT ;.'iinl)i).it, 
 and talu'ii fo Cairo. III., wlicrc In- wasdiscliai'jicd on ilicotli April, aftci- 
 a f'(in(iMcni»-nt. in all, of tliirtccii da\s. ilc allciicd improper trcalincnt; 
 dnriii;4' Ins conlint'iiicnt, in consiMpn-ncc olwhicli Ids heal III was nialriially 
 ininrcil. His arrest was iiiion the elr,ir;;e »d" disloyal and seditions 
 lan,!,Mia;ie a^Miinst llu* I'liili'd 8lates wliile eni|tIoye(l on hoard the ji'iiii- 
 boat. 
 
 The coinniissioii nnaniMioiish inad<' an award in liis I'avoi' for ■'!<l.K»7. 
 
 5. /•/•/:>' cdsfs. 
 
 These elaiais relaleil to vessels and tlnii- ear^ioes cajd nit'(l as pii/e 
 by tlie I'nitiMl Slates diiriii;; the war, and libi'lled in the pi i/ecoiirls of 
 tlie rnil«'il Stales. In a portion ofllieni linal senleiiee (d' eoiidemnatioii 
 of the v» ssi'l (M' (•.ir;;o, or both, was ;;iven l>y the <'i»iirts of the I'niled 
 {Slates, and the claiin was now bron;;ht for the allejicd value of such 
 V(»ssels anil ear;i:oes. alle^^iii'j; the eoadv'ari ition to h tve iieen wion;^- 
 I'ul. In the other eases JiiilLrnienl id' r«'stitiUioii was ;^i\en by flio 
 coiuts, ami the idaini was no.v broi jlit lor d un i;j;.'s by reasui of tho 
 alie;4;ed wron^fnl eapliui' and detention, and for ei)sls and e\i)enses iii- 
 niired in lespect of the same. 
 
 Tlie wliok' number of memorials Hied by dilVerent elaiiiiants for .such 
 <'apfures was se\enty-si\, some ol" the memorials eoverinj«; elainis tor 
 several diU'ereat vessels, as in the ease of S.mders dt Sins, No. L'Hl, in 
 which dama;4es were elaimed for the eaptnre and eondeniMation of 
 twi'iity seven vessels. 
 
 Tlie whide niiinber (d* vessels captni'ed, in respect of which and tludi- 
 t!;U';;de.s claims were iider|»i»se<l, was seventy, in some iiistaiiites many 
 claims ol" dilVerent alh'ji'ecl (jwners beiii;;; interposed inrespect of the 
 .same vessel and her ear};(), as in the case of the IN'lerholV. in re.^artl to 
 which, and dill'ereiit portions (d' her car-^o, twenly twt) memorials werii 
 tiled. 
 
 in respect of the capture of six of these vess(ds and their »'ar;ioes, or 
 portions of the same, awariLs of };reat<'r or less anioniiL were made 
 Jifiaili.st the I'liited States. 
 
 Ill respect of the remaining sixty-fuur, the claims wi're wholly disal- 
 lowed. 
 
 The whole amount claimed as dumayes apiinst the United States in 
 all these ca.ses ^was ij(."»,."»(J0,'.)L'4, besides interest, amount iiij>-, with th« 
 addition of interest for the averafie time elaiiiied, to >i!>,M>4,;{(M). 
 
 The whole amount of the allowaiM-es, in respect of the si.\ ve.SHeLs an 
 to which awards were niaile, was ."jJ.JiSU,!??. 
 
 I 
 
 ' { 
 
88 
 
 AMKIMCAN-imiTISH CLAIMS COMMISSIOX. 
 
 Tlw <iii('sfl()ii was i'liily raisj'tl, (»ii tin* part oftlio ITnitcd Slatox, as to 
 tlioiiii'isdiittioii of tlii>si> \tv'v/A' vaxsoh l)y tli«t coiitiiiission, hotli in ri'spiTt 
 to rases \vlMMt> the division of t)u> ultiinatc appellate trilxiiial <>t the 
 United States liad been had, and to lhos'> in whirh no appeal had lieen 
 pi'osecnled on the part of the claimants to such ultimate trilinnal. As 
 to the former <'lass ot eases, tht^ iindersi;;;ned may properly state that 
 he personally entertaim>d no doiiitt of the jurisdiction of thecommis- 
 Kion, as an international triliunal, to review tluMh'cisions of tln^ pri/u- 
 (MMirts of the I'nited States, where the parlies alle;fin;jj themselvi'S 
 a^i^rievcd had prosecuted their claims hy appeal to theirourtof last 
 n'soit. As tliis Jurisdiction, howev«'i', had been siunctinu's qiu'stiuued, 
 he deeuM'd it th'slrabh^ that a formal adjiulication by tlie commission 
 Hhould be had upmi this <pu'stion. The commission unanimously sus- 
 taitu'd their jurisdii'tion in this ('lass of cases, and, as will be seen, all 
 the mendters of the commission at some tiini^ Jo'ucd in awards a;;ainst 
 tlie United States in such cases. 
 
 The (pu'stion as to the Jurisdiction of the commission in cases whom 
 the party complaiinn;^ had tailed to prosecute his appeal from the pri/e 
 c(Uirt of ori;;iual Jurisdictitm to the court of ultimate appellate juris- 
 diction, waH raised by demurrer in seveial cases, and was ar;;ued at 
 len^rth in the case of the llritish bri;; Xapier, Hyerson and others, 
 claimants. No. 117, In that case the vess«'' was <'aptured as prize in 
 Jidy, IStiL', by a United States vessel of war near the mouth of the (^ape 
 Fear Kiver, on which liver is situated the pent of Wilmington, in North 
 Carolina, a bl(icka<lcd p(Ut. SIm> had sailed from Turk's island, one ot 
 the IJahamas, with a ('ai'^^o of salt, on a voya;j;t^ alle;(ed to have been 
 ilestined loi- the poit of lleaufort, N. ('., then iu>t blockaded, but in pos- 
 sessi(Ui of the United wStales fon-es. Slu' was taken by the <'aptors to 
 the port (tf I'liiladeiphia. and there libelled in the United States district 
 court for tlu' eastern district of Pennsylvania, on tin* clhuj^e of attempt- 
 in;; and inteiidiii;.; to \ idlate the blockade of the port of Wibnin^ttui. 
 or other blockaded port in the iiisurreeliouary States, and was con- 
 demned by that court as lawlul prize, and sold under th«> «lecrct'. The 
 vessel belon;ie«l to the port of Vi.'rnKuith, Nova Scotia, and was owned 
 by Ibitisli subjects there residi'Ut. No appeal appealed to have been 
 taken frcmi the decision of the district coiiit by which the vessel was 
 condemned. The meiiMuial ctuitained a general aveiinent that neither 
 the vessel nor carjio was "liable to tionliscation" iimh^r the law of na- 
 tions or the laws of the United Slates. A demurrer was interposed on 
 behalf of the U'nited States, specifying", anionj; other {^rounds of <le- 
 inurrer, the following' : 
 
 'I'liiit tlii> mciiiorial ilocs not sluiw aii.v iipix'al (akiMi fromOio Juili^mcnt of saiil conrt 
 to tlif a|i|ii-liati' tiiliiiiiais lit' tlu* I'liitt-il States iiaviii^ a|))icilati> Jiirisilit'tiiin tli<-r<'ot'; 
 ami (lot'N not show tliat tlic ifiiit'tly of tlu> claiiiiaiitH tor tin-ir iill<-;;fil ^rii'vancc iimlcr 
 
 till' lawH of tin' I nitiil States linil I ii Hoiij^lit or piirMiifd (r) or in tln' Judicial tribii- 
 
 luil of the l.'niU'tl States liavitij; iiltiiiialc iipiiullate jiiriHilietiuii of tliu ttuitl iiialtor. 
 
A(ji:nts ur.i'oKT. 
 
 KO 
 
 t«'s, as t(t 
 II n'spcrt 
 il ot the 
 liiiil lii'i'ii 
 Hill. As 
 tati^ tliat 
 ooinniis- 
 \u'i pri/t^- 
 ('lll.s^'lv.l^s 
 t of last 
 ('.s(i«»iH'il, 
 iniiiissioii 
 usiy sits- 
 si>(iii, all 
 s against 
 
 tlu' prize 
 lie Juris- 
 r;;iu'(l at 
 I olluMs, 
 pri/.c ill 
 lie (^ape 
 ill North 
 
 I, OIM> l)t 
 IVC Im'CU 
 
 It ill pos 
 iptors to 
 s district 
 attiMiipt 
 
 lllillJL^'tOII. 
 
 Viis con 
 (c The 
 s ()\viumI 
 ive been 
 'ssel was 
 neither 
 \y of iia 
 >ose(l on 
 s of (hv 
 
 Hiiiil roiirt 
 II ilicicdf: 
 iin'i> iKidcr 
 I'iiii lril)ii- 
 iialtor. 
 
 1 
 
 On the arjiumeiit of this ease on (leiiiiirier, it was eonteinleil. on the 
 part of the I'niteil Htates, that until tli<' claiinant has exhaiistcM his 
 reiiieil.v l».v appeal, ami tiiids hiinst'lf still ay:«;riev«Ml l>y tlie.jinlieial tri- 
 hniialoflast resort, he has no yrinuinl orre«'lain:Uioii a^Minst thernitetl 
 States as the workers of injnstiee a;;aiiist him. That it is only in the 
 event of liiial failiin> of justice, after pnrsnil of all the rcHrnlai and ordi- 
 nary means (if redress, that any adjudication is to he considered as work 
 iiif; wron^ ay:aiiist a foreij^n litiy[anl so as to eiitith' him to reclamation 
 tliroii;;h the intervenli<m «)f hisown ;;overiimeiit. That theliti;;ant who 
 stops short of this and siihmiis to the in<l>;'menl of tin' inferior conrt, 
 wiihont seek in;; a review and reversal of such jiid.^Mneiit l»y the appel 
 late tril)iinal, in etfectconcedes the cMriectncss of the jnd;;nient to which 
 he siilmiits. The counsel for the llnitJ'd Stales cited the report of Mr- 
 Murray, iifterwards liord .Manslield,) I7"».{, upon the reprisals made Ity 
 the Kin^ of Triissia upon the Silcsian lioaii ; W'hcalon's History of the 
 Law <»f Niifions, pp. lMO, L'll ; Wildman's Institnt«'s, vol. I, pp. .■{."».{,.>."» I ; 
 Itntherforth's Institutes, vol. L', pp.. V.MI-T-S-il; the (>|»iiiionsof Dr. Nicholl 
 and .Mr. I'inkney in the «'ase t»f the lletsy, before the commission under 
 the .seventh arliclcof the treaty of l."»th Noveinlter. IT'.M. Iietween the 
 United States and (Ireat IJritaiii. (Whealoii's file of Piiikney, pp. I!l.» 
 to L'7(;.) 
 
 Iler llritannic .Majcst^N 's counsel, on helialfof the claimants in this and 
 other ea.ses, maintained that the doctrines of the piiltlicists in re;.;ard to 
 the ne<!essily of a party a;;y;rie\cd foilowin^if out his complete remedy in 
 the appi'llate prize courts ol the nation of whose acts he coniplaine«l, 
 applied only to the (|iiestion as to ^jronnds of war and reprisals, and did 
 not apply to the (|iicstion of Jiirisilictiuii by an international triliiiiial, 
 established by treaty, with the Iar;;«' powers and jurisdiction conferred 
 by the treaty upon this commission. That ninler tlu* terms of the treaty 
 the commission had jurisdiction of all wron^i'iil acts committed by the 
 authorities of the (Jnit( d States upon the persons or in'operly of Ibitish 
 subjects; that the case of the claimant here was founded, not on an al- 
 le^jed denial of justice, bat on aii act allciicd to lie in \ iolation of the 
 law of nations, to wit, the wron^'fiil capture of the claimant's vessel, 
 which act had been adopted by the Inited States, whose armed Ibrce 
 committed the wroni;, iind of which wrongful act the riiiled States had 
 receivetl the benelit. He cited Dana's Wheaton, § li!»'_' ; <'irotius, liook ."5, 
 <'. 2, §^ I, ."»; Wildman, vol. 1, p. 11»7; the treaty between the liiitcd 
 States and (Ireat I'.ritain of 17!M, (S Slat, at L., 121,) and the case of 
 the bark i'MU's, before the commission under the convention oi is,");; b«'- 
 tweoii ttie Lidted States and (Ireat Ibitain. (Report of that coiumis- 
 ■wion, p. M-, \ 
 
 The c'triiMii-i^ion held, in ene(!t, (hat, under the treaty, they had juris- 
 di«!tion.notwithstandin^'tlie failure «)f the claimant to pursue his remedy 
 by appial to the court of last resort; but that such failure on his part 
 would be considered conclusive again.st him, unles.s .satisfa<tory reasons 
 
 
 \l 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 / 
 
 O 
 
 
 Vx 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 m Ilia 
 
 •^ IIM 
 
 M 
 
 2.2 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.4 
 
 i.6 
 
 
 -^ 6" — 
 
 
 ► 
 
 ^. 
 
 V] 
 
 <p 
 
 ^ 
 
 n 
 
 m 
 
 
 A 
 
 y 
 
 y. 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. H5B0 
 
 (716) 873-4503 
 
 \ 
 
 iV 
 
 ^<b 
 
 V 
 
 ^ 
 
 <> 
 
 «» 
 
 % 
 
 <- 
 
 w^i 
 
 ^ 
 
 <- 
 
 r^\ 
 
 ^ 
 
 <i 
 
 f"^ 
 i.<> 
 
 r^^" 
 
&? 
 
 
W" 
 
 .11 li 
 
 90 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 t : 
 
 Ml 
 
 IJ 
 
 were given for tlie omission to appeal. It was thereupon nnaniinously 
 onlered by the eoinniission that thedeiiuurersbe overrriie(l,l)iit that the 
 chumaiits, in all the prize cases in which appeals had not been taken 
 and pursned to the conrt of last resort, should file with the commission 
 their reasons for such oniissions or failures to take and prosecute such 
 appeals. 
 
 Subsequently tlie claimants in this case tiled an affidavit, assigning 
 as their reasons for not appealing from the decree of the district court 
 the following: 
 
 Int. Bi'cauKo it was iiniversiiUy known in Philadelphia at the time said decree passed 
 tliat app<!al8 from the prize courts there by claimants were almost uniformly confirmed 
 V itli costs. 2d. That i)iihlic opinion there was in sympathy with such c()ntirmation8, 
 under the suspicion that commercial men in this province (Nova Scotia) were in sym- 
 pathy with the confederates. 3d. That the other owners of the Napier were not of 
 pecuniary ability to procure the necessary sureties without much Inconvenience, nor 
 to sustain further heavy costs, and the burden of loss added to injin'y, especially as 
 we had already expended nearly $r)00 iu counsel fees, agency, and travelling expenses 
 connected with tliis seizure. 
 
 On the tiling of these " reasons" the commission, without further ar- 
 gument, held them insuflicient to excuse the want of appeal, and unan- 
 imously disallowed the claim. On the decision of the original question 
 Mr. Commissioner Frazer read an opinion which will be found iu the ap 
 l)endix, L. 
 
 Under the order for claimants in cases in which no appeal had been 
 taken to file their reasons for non-appeal, such reasons were filed and 
 passed upon in the following cases : 
 
 John W. Carmalt, No. 89, claimant for part of the cargo of the ship 
 Amelia, captured and condemned by the United States, alleged, as his 
 excuse for non-appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, that 
 the claimant, being then within the State of South Carolina, then at war 
 with the United States, was unable to communicate with counsel in 
 Philadelphia, where the vessel was libelled, or to take any measures for 
 l)rosecuting such appeal on account of the war then raging. 
 
 The commission (Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting) held these rea- 
 sons sufficient ; but subsequently, on the hearing on the merits, unani- 
 mously disallowed the claimant's claim, it appearing that he was at the 
 time of the allege«l capture domiciled within the Confederate States, 
 and his property, therefore, liable to capl are on the high seas as enemy's 
 property. 
 
 In the case of the brig Ariel, R. M. Carson, claimant. No. 178, the 
 reason assigned for non-appeal was that the claimant had never been 
 aware, until the filing of the demurrer to his memorial before the com- 
 mission, " that there could have beeu any appeal from the decision of the 
 United States prize court that condemned the vessel and cargo," 
 
 The commission unanimously disallowed the claim, on the ground of 
 the iusufiicieucy of this reason. 
 
AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 9^1 
 
 In the case of tlie schooner Argonaut, Joseph IJ.rioycocli, ad mi iiistrator, 
 No. 203, and Frederick Win. Kn^'jiies, No. 2(J4, chiiinants, the reasons for 
 non-ai»|)eal assigned were that the connsel consnlted by the chiiinants 
 advised them that there was no necessity for taking" such appeal, unless 
 they intended to(!ommence a suit in a civil court for damages, and that 
 such claims, arising during the war, would, without doubt, be ultin»ately 
 made the subject of arbitration, on which advice the claimants acted, 
 and so omitted to appeal. 
 
 The commission unanimously disallowed the claim on the ground of 
 the insufficiency of the reasons. 
 
 In the (!ases of the brig Sarah Starr and the schooner Aigburth, Cow- 
 ^am Graveley, claimant. No. 2!)2, the reasons assigned for non-appeal 
 were that the claimant had become impoverished by his losses during 
 the war, and the expenses of prosecjuting his claims in the prize-court 
 of original jurisdiction, and was unable to incur further expense ; and 
 also that he was advised that in the excited state of the country, and 
 in view of the tenor of other decisions of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States, he would not be likely to obtain impartial justice by 
 such appeal. 
 
 The commission unanimously disallowed the claim for insufficiency 
 of the reasons. 
 
 In the case of ihe schooner Prince Leopold, Henry A. McLeod, claim- 
 ant. No. 30G, the claimant assigned as reasons for his failure to appeal, his 
 poverty and consequent inability to meet the drafts of his pro(!tor and 
 counsel in New York, and his expectation that his proctor would prose- 
 cute the appeal at his own expense, of the failure of which expectation 
 he was not advised iu season to secure the services of another lawyer 
 on those terms. 
 
 The commission unanimously held the reasons insufficient, and dis- 
 allowed the claim. 
 
 In the case of the M. S. Perry, otherwise known as the "Salvor," 
 John McLennan, claimant. No. 370, the claimant alleged as reasons for 
 non-appeal that the case of the vessel was hurried through the prize- 
 court so rapidly that he, residing in Havana, had no opportunity to in- 
 terpose any claim or defense; that he was advised by letter from Lord 
 Lyons, Her Majesty's minister at Washington, that h^ wo ild iiave full 
 opportunity to defend, but that subsequently it appeared that the vessel 
 and cargo had been condemned and sold some days before this letter 
 was written, and that, though he attempted by correspondence to 
 secure a defence of his rights, all such eflorts proved futile and una- 
 vailing. 
 
 The commission accepted these reasons as sufficient, Mr. Commissioner 
 Frazer dissenting, and directed the case to be heard on its merits. On 
 final bearing the claim was disallowed, as will hereafter appear. 
 
Iltfl 'IIM'I : 
 
 Ml 
 f 
 
 92 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 In tlie case of the sliip Will o'-tlie-wiap, J. G. A. Creighton and others, 
 claimants, No.378,the reasons assigned for non-appeal were, in substance, 
 that tliey did not know the case was appealable, and that they supposed 
 that their proper appeal was to their own government. 
 
 The reasons were held insutflcient, and the claim disallowed, Mr. Com- 
 missioner Gurney dissenting. 
 
 In the case of the brig Minnie, Wm. H. Fisher, claimant. No. 379, tlie 
 reasons for non-appeal were substantially the same as alleged in tlie case 
 of the Ariel, No, 178, supra. 
 
 The commission unanimously disallowed the claim for the insuflBcieucy 
 of the reasons. 
 
 In the case of the schooner Adelso, Henry Horton, claimant. No. 437, 
 the claimant assigned as his reasons for non-appeal, his poverty and his 
 apprehensions of the danger of investing more money in law expenses. 
 
 The commission unanimously adjudged the reasons insufficient, and 
 disallowed the claim. 
 
 The above were the only cases in which the sufficiency of the reasons 
 assigned for non-appeal were specifically passed upon by the commis- 
 sion. In several other cases reasons for non-appeal were filed, but were 
 not passed upon by the commission before the final disposition of the 
 cases upon the merits. 
 
 The action of the commission upon those cases, respectively, will ap- 
 pear in the following notes, under the heads of the respective vessels. 
 
 It may be stated generally, that although in two or three cases, as 
 above note«l, the commission expressly held the excuse for non-appeal 
 to be sufficient' to entertain jurisdiction of the claim upon the merits, 
 and although in other cases the commission did not expressly dis- 
 allow the claim on the ground of the insufficiency of the reasons for 
 non-appeal, no award was made against the United States in any case 
 in which the claimants had not pursued their remedy in the prize courts 
 of the United States by appeal to the court of last resort. I am ad- 
 vised that Mr. Commissioner Frazer was of opinion that nothing short 
 of the misfeasance or default of the capturing Government, by means 
 of which an appeal was prevented, was sufficient to excuse the failure 
 to appeal, and that in accordance with this view he held the reasons 
 assigned in every case before the commission to be insufficient. 
 
 The following cases cover all the prize cases not disposed of by the 
 ru'iitgs of the commission on the question of non-appeal, as above 
 stated : 
 
 The steamship Dolphin; Richard Henry Eustice, No. 100, claimant for 
 part of cargo and for wages, &c. 
 This vessel was captured by a United States war-vessel while on a 
 
AGENT 8 REPORT. 
 
 93 
 
 voyage from Liverpool, ostensibly to Nassau, in the island of New 
 Providence. She was taken into the port of Key West, and there 
 libelled in tlie United States district ce'Mt for the southern distric't; of 
 Florida. A claim was interposed in that court on behalf of William 
 J. Grazebrooke, niercluuit of Liverpool, as the owner of the vessel. 
 
 The njeniorialof the claimant here alleged that the prize court refused 
 to condemn the steamer as lawful prize, but she was, notwithstanding, 
 with her cargo, taken possession of by the United States Government, 
 and no part thereof ever returned to the owner. The proofs, however, 
 showed that the vessel and cargo were regularly condenuied in the 
 prize court, aiul that no appeal was taken from the jiulguient of that 
 court. Among her cargo were found 40 cases containing 1)L'0 ritles, 
 and 20 cases containing 2,240 cavalry swords, all enteied upon her 
 manifest under the name of hardware. The proofs before the prize 
 court satislied Judge Marvin, before whom the trial was Inid, that the 
 ultimate destination of both vessel and cargo was (Charleston or Wil- 
 mington, both blockaded ports of the Confederate States; and he 
 accordingly decreed condemnation of both vessel and cargo as lawful 
 prize. The proofs in the prize court were not put in evidence before 
 the commission, and the claimant submitted his case upon his own 
 deposition, taken on notice, in the course of which he refused to answer 
 various pertinent questions propounded on cross-examination, touching 
 his experience as a blookade-ruuner, and his intentions in connection 
 with the voyage of the Dolphin. 
 
 No reasons for non-appeal were filed, the case having been disposed of 
 on the merits without waiting for such reasons. 
 
 The commission, without hearing any argument on the part of the 
 United States, unanimously disallowed the claim. 
 
 The brig Isabella Thompson; James McDaniel, No. 108, claimant for 
 vessel : Nehemiah K. Clements, No. 107, cUiimant for cargo. 
 
 This vessel was cai)tured in June, 1803, by a United States cruiser 
 on her return voyage from Nassau, New Providence, to ILilifax, Nova, 
 Scotia, where she was owned, having been chartered by tlie owner, 
 McUaiiiel, to William Pryor & Sons, of Halifax, agents of Sanders «& 
 Sons, of Nassau, for a voyage from Halifax to Nassau and back to Hali- 
 fax. The claimant Clements in his memorial alleged tluit the vessel 
 was chartered by himself. The claimant McDauiel in his m;Mn )rial al- 
 leged that the charter was to Messrs. Win. Pryor .li, ^ons. Tlie proofs 
 in both cases showed that the charter, although in form to Messrs. Pryor 
 & Sons, was taken by them as the agents of and for the benefit of Messrs. 
 Sanders & Sons. She was taken by the captors into the port of New 
 York and there libelled in the United States district court. Judgment of 
 restitution was rendered in that court, but without costs or damages to 
 the claimants. (Blatchford's Prize Cases, 377.) From so much of the 
 decree as refused costs and damages the claimants respectively appealed 
 
 \\. 
 
 i; 
 
94 
 
 AMKRICAN-BRITISll CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 ;!!' 
 
 '< ]■ 
 
 
 i; ,1' 
 
 il.'i; 
 
 
 HI 
 
 to tlie Riiprpmo Court of tlie United States, wliere the jn(l<;me!it of the 
 distri.it eomt wiis nttinned, the supreme court sayiii.c; that a ease of pro- 
 bable eanse was (jlearly made out, and expressing doubt whether the 
 vessel and earj^fo should not have been condemned by the court below 
 on tlie evideiute before it. The {!a:w in the Supreme Court is rei)orted 
 under the name of" TIu* Thompson," (3 Wallace Supreme Court Keports, 
 p. 15i).) The evidence showed that the vessel had arrived at Nassau 
 from Halifax, and had discharj^ed her outward cargo. She then took 
 ou board a car^o of turpentine and cottoti, the i)roduct of the insurre(5- 
 tionary States, which she received in the harbor from on board another 
 vessel, the Argyle, which had run the blockade from Wilminj»ton, N. 
 C, with this cargo, which she diS(!harged directly upon the Isabella 
 Thonjpsou, having hauled alongside her. 
 
 The claimant Clements allegeu in his memorial that he was the sole 
 owner of the cargo which was purchased by him at Nnssau ; that he had 
 made an arrangement with Messrs. Martiu & Co., of Nassau, tliat they 
 should have one-half the cargo when they paid for the same, but that 
 Martin & Co. had never paid for their half, but after the seizure arul 
 redelivery of the caigoto the claimant, refused to pay for their one-half, 
 aiul the claimant thereby remained sole owner. In the course of the 
 litigation in the prize court this claimant had several times stated on 
 oath that one-half the cargo belonged to him and one-half to Messrs. 
 Martin & Co. In his testimony before the commission he stated in effect 
 that the cjrgo was shipped by Messrs. Martin & Co., on joint account, 
 and that after restoration to himself he settled with Martin & Co., he pay- 
 ing all expenses, and on such settlement it was agreed that he should 
 be personally entitled to all damages recovered from the United States 
 Government. Martin & Co. were shown to have been actively engaged 
 in blockade-running; and their letters found on board the Isabella 
 Thompson, to their correspondents at Halifax and New York, sufficiently 
 indicated that the cargo in question was run out by the Argyle on joint 
 account of themselves and the claimant Clements. 
 
 On cross exanjination Clements refused to answer who constituted the 
 firm of Martin & Co., and whether he was himself a member of that firm ; 
 whether they had general authority to make purchases for and ship- 
 ments to him, or only special authority for particular purchases; 
 whether they shi[»ped goods on his account to the blockaded ports of 
 the insurrectioimry States, or purchased goods in those ports for him. 
 He also refused to state more particularly the terms of the contract or 
 agreement by which he became the owner of Martin & Co.'s half of 
 the cargo, and evaded the question whether he ever paid for the cargo 
 seized in the Isabella Thompson, and if so, to whom, how much, and 
 when. He admitted himself the owner of the Argyle, the blockade- 
 runner from which the Isabella Thompson received the cargo in ques- 
 tion. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was maintained tliat the proofs 
 
AGENT S REPORT. 
 
 95 
 
 ent of the 
 use of pro- 
 ('tlier the 
 trt below- 
 reported 
 t Reports, 
 t Xassaii 
 lien took 
 insiirree- 
 1 {mother 
 ii<»ton, N. 
 Isabel hi 
 
 I the sole 
 iit he had 
 that they 
 
 but that 
 zure and 
 one-half, 
 se of the 
 tated on 
 
 Messrs. 
 
 in effect 
 account, 
 , he pay- 
 e should 
 d States 
 engaged 
 Isabella 
 fticiently 
 
 on joint 
 
 uted the 
 uit firm ; 
 id ship- 
 rchases; 
 ports of 
 for him. 
 tract or 
 half of 
 le cargo 
 ich, and 
 lockade- 
 in ques- 
 
 before the prize conri, especially as sn|)ported by the testimony of 
 the claimant Clements before the comMiission, clearly established thut 
 as to the cargo there was not only ami>le probable cause to Justify tlie 
 capture, but that the proof was ample tor its (jondeninatiou ; that the 
 cargo was never landed at Nassau, an<l certainly never became a i)art 
 of the common stock of that port, but was in the course of a continu- 
 ous voyage from the blockaded port of AVilmington to Halifax, having 
 been merely transshipi)ed from the Argyle to the Isabella Thomi)son, 
 without change of ownership or of original destination. That the 
 evasive, uncandid, and untruthful testimony of the claimant ClenuMits 
 when testiCying in his own behalf, aiul his refusal to answer on cross- 
 examitujtion legitimate ami pertinent questions, exposed his claim to 
 every possible im|)lication against its merits. And that the only error 
 committed by the prize court was in adjudging restitution instead of 
 condemnation of the cargo. That if the seizure of the car jo was jnstilia- 
 ble, the seizure and detention of the vessel were also jusiifiable to the 
 same extent, and that her owner could sustain no claim for damages 
 where the cargo was liable to condemnation or probable cause was 
 found for its seizure, or that of any part of it. 
 
 The counsel for the United States cited The Carl Walter, 4 C. Rob., 
 207; The Eliza Ann, 1 Hagg., 257; The Thomyris, EdwardsMleps., 17; 
 The Ostsee, 2 Spinks, 18G; The Leucade, id., 228, 234 to 230; 3 Philli- 
 more, 534, 5G5, and authorities there cited. 
 
 Both claims were unanimously disallowed by the commission. 
 
 Thomas Grant's tobacco, No. 211. 
 
 The claimant in this case, domiciled at Petersburgh, Va., during the 
 war, claimed, among other matters in his memorial, $787.50, " for the loss 
 of tobacco shipped from Wilmington, N. C, consigned to Messrs. Charles 
 R. Somerville & Co., London, captured by the United States vessels, 
 which tobacco was taken to New York and placed in the hands of United 
 States officials, who sold it at a high price." His memorial contained no 
 other allegations concerning the tobacco or its capture. On demurrer 
 by the United States the claim was unanimously disallowed. 
 
 The schooner Pacifique, Nazaire Leuiieux, No. 215, claimant for the 
 veasel ; Harvey & Co., No. 214, claimant for the cargo. 
 
 The Paciflque was owned at Quebec, Canada East, where the claim- 
 ant Lemieux resided. She was chartered to the claimants Harvey & Co. 
 for a round voyage from Saint John's, Newfoundland, to a port in the 
 West Indies ; thence to Cienfuego.s, Cuba, and thence back to Saint John's. 
 She sailed from Cienfuegos on the 12th March, 1863, on her alleged 
 return voyage to Newfoundland, upou which her proper course would 
 have taken her along the eastern shore of Florida. She was capture<l 
 on the 27th March, 1803, by a United States war-vessel, off' the port of 
 Saiut Mark's, in the Gulf of Mexico, on the western shore of Florida, and 
 
w\ 
 
 wv 
 
 
 |i ;■:: 
 
 iil! 
 
 iiiii 
 
 
 ' Ml 
 
 
 MJ 
 
 ! iij 
 
 : ^ \ 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 96 
 
 AMERICAN BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 80 nciir the blockiided ports of CodarKeys anil Saint Mark's as to raise 
 wluit Jinlfji' Marvin called "a very strong and violent presumption" in 
 the mind of the capturing officer of a purpose to break the blockade. 
 She was taken into the port of Key West, and there libelled in the 
 United States district court. On the hearing before Judge Marvin judg- 
 ment of restitution of the vessel and cargo was awarded on payment to 
 the marshal of the pilotage and the costs of keeping the vessel while in 
 port, probable cause of capture being certified by the judge, and costs 
 and damages refused to the claimants. 
 
 From this ju<lgment no appeal was taken by either party. The 
 evidence before the prize court was not produced before the commission. 
 
 Under the order of the commission, requiring reasons for failure to 
 appeal to be filed, the claimants filed an affidavit of Mr. Outerbridge, 
 agent for the clainiants Harvey '& Co., in which he assigned as the 
 reason for non-appeal that the master had no funds or credit at Key 
 West to employ counsel to take an ai)peal from said decree, or to furnish 
 bonds on appeal ; that the master "believed that the release of the 
 vessel and cargo imposed on him the duty of continuing his voyage ; " 
 and that he forthwith departed from Key West; and that " the claim- 
 ants believed that the payn»ent of the costs imposed, as well as the 
 declaration of probable cause of capture, forming part of said decree, 
 were within theordinary discretion of the court or its officers and formed 
 uo ground of special exception." 
 
 No distinct or separate ruling was made by the commission as to the 
 sufficiency of these reasons for uon-appeal, the question having been 
 submitted on the final hearing of the case on its merits, and in con- 
 nection with the other questions involved in the case. Judge Marvin, 
 on the hearing, after examining the tt^^timony and comparing the log- 
 book, came to the conclusion that, " strange as it might seem," the 
 case was one of honest mistake of reckoning by the master, and that he, 
 in fact, thought he was on the eastern side of Florida, and had mistaken 
 the coast of Florida, which lay to the east of him, for a part of the 
 Bahamas, some five degrees of longitude farther to the east; that in 
 fact the vessel was innocent of any intent to break the blockade ; but 
 that the circumstances under which the vessel was found fully justified 
 the capturing officer in making the capture, and warianted his belief 
 that the vessel was actually engaged in an attempt to break the 
 blockade. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was maintained — 
 
 1. That the claimants having omitted to put in evidence the proofs 
 before the prize court, those proofs must be taken by the commission as 
 sufficient to sustain the judgment of the prize court. 
 
 2. Tliat on the evidence offered by the claimants themselves here, 
 and on their letters to the British minister, and the protest of the master 
 and officers of the schooner, the facts appearing fully sustained nie con- 
 clusions arrived at by Judge Marvin. That under the circumstances 
 
AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 07 
 
 to r.ane 
 »tion" in 
 locktidc. 
 I ill the 
 'injiulj?- 
 ineiit to 
 while in 
 lul costs 
 
 ;y. The 
 jmission. 
 ailiire to 
 nbridge, 
 (I as the 
 [, at Key 
 o furnish 
 e of the 
 royase ; " 
 ho chiini- 
 sll as the 
 d decree, 
 id formed 
 
 as to the 
 Ing beeu 
 il ill con- 
 Marvin, 
 the log- 
 sem," the 
 that he, 
 mistaken 
 rt of the 
 that in 
 iide; bat 
 Justified 
 lis belief 
 reak the 
 
 le proofs 
 lissiou as 
 
 k'^es here, 
 le piaster 
 I ttie coa- 
 mstaaces 
 
 appoarinj? to the capturing oflicer, he was jiistiliod in inaking the cap- 
 ture and tidving the vessel in for condemnation. That the capturing 
 ollicer in such case did not stand in the plaiic of a jiidicMal ollicer, com- 
 pelled to decide at his own peril upon the ultimate liability of a vessel 
 to con<lemnation as prize, but was only l)(»und to acthonestly and fairly 
 and upon the circumstances reasonably apparent to himself. That the 
 fact that the vessel captured was involved in suspicious circumstances, 
 without fault on the part of her odicers, but bj- an honest mistake, did 
 not change the (piestion as to the liability of the captor to damages for 
 wrongful seizure. 
 
 3. That the excuse offered for failure to appeal from the Judgment ot 
 the prize court was insullicient. That the master had power to bind his 
 principals (the owners) for payment of counsel-fees and for the security of 
 the sureties on the appeal bond. That the statute regulating practice 
 in the prize courts then in force (12 Stat, at Large, 700, sec. 7) gave full 
 authority to the Judge to extend the time for taking appeal ; and that the 
 claimants having made no application for such extension (certainly could 
 not allege that it would not have been granted on proper application. 
 And that the second reason assigned for non-appeal amounted simply 
 to an averment that the master, as rei)resenting the claimants, and the 
 claimants themselves, on being advised by the master of tln^ facts, did 
 not consider that there was any just ground of appeal from the decree 
 of the <;ourt. 
 
 The counsel for the United States cited 3 Phillimore, 5(50, 507, 570; 
 the letter of Sir William Scott and Sir John Nicholl to ]\rr. ,Iay, iV/., 554 ; 
 the San Antonio, Acton's Kep's, 113; the Ostsee, Spinks's lliip's, 170, 
 171 ; S. C, 9 Moore's P. C. K., 150 ; the George, 1 Mason, 1»0 ; the Leu- 
 cade, 2 Spinks, 228, 234 to 230 ; 2 Kutherforth, 599. 
 
 On the part of the claimants it was contended that the case showed 
 the vessel out of her proper course solely from the ignorance and be- 
 wilderment of her master, in consequence of thick weather and of the 
 vessel having drifted by strong currents, unknown to the master, who 
 was innocent of intent to break the blockade ; that these facts were es- 
 tabli-shed by her log and papers, and would have satisfactorily appeared 
 to the captors by a proper inspection of the same ; that the captors, 
 having neglected to avail themselves of the knowledge thus open to 
 them from the books and papers of the vessel, were in fault, and should 
 have been cast in damages and costs ; that no appeal could, by law, be 
 taken from the district court to the Supreme Court, the amount in- 
 volved being less than $2,000, and that, if an appeal could have been 
 taken by law, the affidavit of Mr. Outerbridge sufficiently excused the 
 failure to take it. 
 
 The counsel for the claimant cited the Palmyra, 12 Wheat., 1; the 
 ApoUon, 9 id., 302 ; the case of the bark Jones before the commission- 
 ers under the convention of 1853, report of those commissioners, 83 ; 
 the case of the schooner John before the same commissioners, report, 
 7 H 
 
98 
 
 AMKRirAN-BRITISII CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 , 
 
 !(■ ' 
 
 iili;':! 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 in 
 
 427; (icoifjo TToiipliton's case before tho snuio oornmissioiiors, KJl ; Mai- 
 ley r.v. tSliattiick, Ji Crarich, 458; Dana's Wlioatoii, 4.'iS vt ; La Amistad 
 do Kiies, ") Wheat., .385 ; tlie Amiablo Nancy, ."> /^/., 51(5 ; tlic, stilioonor 
 Liv«'Iy, I (Jail., .'{l."); lltMUMlict's Adai. Jaiisdiction and Tiactico, 2d cd., 
 SCO. r>SO, ]). .'M") ; sec. r»12, p. .'50.") ; the United Spates rs. Ilaynes, 2 MirLean, 
 I'm; Jenks r.v. Lewis, .'{ ]\Lison, 50J; Snow vs. Cairuth, 1 Sprague, 
 Mass. Adin. and ]\far. I'ep., .'>24. 
 
 Ill both eases the claims were disallowed, all the commissioners 
 agreeing. 
 
 The bark Sally Magee ; Charles Coleman, claimant, >;o. 232. 
 
 The memorial in this <!ase was filed in the name of Charles ('oloman, 
 as surviving partner of the firm of Charles Coleman & Co., Ibitish mer- 
 chants, domiciled in liio de Janeiro from l-SOl to 18G;"), for a quantity 
 of coffee, part of the cargo of the bark Sally Mag(»e, belonging to Rich- 
 mond, Va., and owned by citizens of the Confederate States there resi- 
 dent. Coleman had in fact died about a week before the filing of the 
 memorial, that fact being unknown to the attorneys who filed the memo- 
 rial in his name, but for the benefit of the firm of J^'dmond, Davenport 
 & Co., as hereinafter sot forth. A question was raised as to the case 
 being regularly before the commission on account of the death of the 
 claimant before the filing of the memorial, l)ut the commission, in Octo- 
 ber, 1872, ordered that the administrator of Coleman have leave to prose- 
 cute the claim. The case was as follows: 
 
 Edmond, I)aveni>ort & Co., a firm doing business at "Richmond, Va.) 
 and composed of citizens of that citj', in 18GI, before the establishment 
 of the blockade, shipped goods to the claimant's firm at Kio de Janeiro, 
 with written instructions as to the investment of the proceeds in coft'ee. 
 These written instructions were not produced; but the claimants gave 
 evidence that the instructions were in effect to i)urchase coffee if pro- 
 curable, at not over lOi cents per pound, and ship it to the Richmond 
 firm. Coleman & Co. purchased the coffee at a price not accurately 
 shown, but said to exceed the limit given them by the Richmond 
 firm by from one-Lalf a cent to a cent per pound, and shipped it 
 by the Sall.y Magee, consigned to Edmond, Davenport & Co., at 
 Richmond. The vessel sailed from Rio de Janeiro for Richmond on 
 the 12th INLiy, 18G1, and, as the claimant alleged, before intelligence of 
 the war or the blockade had reached Rio de Janeiro. She was captured 
 by a United States cruiser off the entrance of Chesapeake Bay on the 
 2Gth Jnne, 18G1, taken to New York, and there libelled iu the United 
 States district court, and the vessel and cargo, including the coffee in 
 question, condemned as enemy's property. (See reportof the case iu the 
 district court, Blatchford's Prize Cases, 382.) In the prize court Messrs. 
 Charles M. Fry & Co. intervened on behalf of Coleman & Co., in 
 respect of the coffee in question, claiming it as the property of 
 
agent's rkport. 
 
 99 
 
 ssiouers 
 
 Culomnn & Co. No express ropiuliiition of the i)ar('liiisfi by tlie llich- 
 inoiid linn was shown; nor did it appear tliat the liicliinoiid firm svas 
 advised of the terms of the purchase until after the capture of the vessel. 
 Two members of that firm were examined as witnesses before the com- 
 mission, one of whom testified that, in view of all the eircMinisfances, 
 lie thon<jfht his lirni would have ratified the purchase if the vessel ha<l 
 arrived safely at her point of destination, while the other testified that 
 he thoufjlit they would not have . atified it. Coleman & (Jo. appealed 
 from the decree of condemnation of the district (!ourt to the Supremo 
 Court of the L'nitcd States, where the decnee of the district court was 
 ailirmed, (3 Wall., 451.) The condemnation iu the district court and 
 the atlirmation of the same in the Supreme Court both proceeded upon 
 the j^round that the coH'ee was, by the terms of the consi;»nment, prima 
 facie the property of the consignees, and that no aufFicient proof had 
 been made of the terms of the instructions given by the Richmond firm 
 to Coleman & Co. in regard to the purchase, or ot the violation of those 
 instruct it>ns by Coleman & Co. The claim was prosecuted before the 
 commission by Messrs. Edmond, Davenport & Co., at their own cost 
 and for their own benefit, though iu the name of Charles Coleman, 
 surviving partner, undc; an assignment conveying to the former firm 
 all the right, title, and interest of Coleman & Co. in the claim. 
 
 On the part of the United States, it was contended that the condem- 
 nation by the prize court was lawful, and was sustained by the evidence 
 before that court ; that no sufficient proof was there made to rebut the 
 presumption arising upon the face of the piipers, that the colTeo was the 
 property of the Richmond consignees; that if the facts were as alleged, 
 Coleman & Co. were bound to make law fid proof of those facts before 
 the prize court; that for that purpose they should properly have applied 
 for the. taking of further proofs, but that they made no such application. 
 That having failed to make such proofs before the prize court, they 
 could not now be allowed to make them denovo before the commission ; 
 thus establishing a state of facts different from that appearing before 
 the prize courts. That even if such new proof before the commissiou were 
 admissible, the claimant, by omitting to produce or account for the 
 written Instructions to Coleman & Co., had failed to establish even here 
 any facts showing Coleman & Co. the owners of the coffee. That the 
 parol evidence as to the terms of those instructions given on the part 
 of the claimant was inadmissible, and that the claim being now prose- 
 cuted for the sole benefit of Messrs. Edmond, Davenport & Co., who 
 were not British subjects, but at fJie time of the seizure enemies of 
 the United States, and now citizens of the same, the court bad 
 no jurisdiction of the claim under the terms of the treaty. That the 
 property having been captured and condemned, as the property of 
 Edmond, Davenport & Co., enemies of the United States; having been 
 bought with their money for their benefit; shipped to them in good 
 faith ; captured under circumstances which made the capture lawful if 
 
100 
 
 AMERICAN-HKITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 I':l 
 
 I !■ 
 
 m 
 
 111' 
 
 •i 
 
 ■ S, ji 
 
 the property wuh thoirs: tlicy liaviiijj att('iiiptt'<l to avail tlHMiiHclvos of 
 a tccliiiijial ri^lit to ropiuliatc tlie owjiersliip of the proixuty, and then 
 haviii;:^' taken an assi<;iirnent of the chiini for th(! purpose of reinil)ur.sin;>' 
 theniselve.s for the moneys invested on their behalf in the same i)roi>erty, 
 and now prosecuting tho (tlaini in the name of a Hritish subje(!t wholly 
 without actual interest in the property, tho case was in substance one 
 between the United States and its own now citizens and former enemies, 
 and not covered by the si)irit or ecpnty of the treaty, and was not such 
 a boHt(-Jhk cowtroyvrsy between a subject of (ireat lUitain and the govern- 
 ment of the United States as the treaty contemplated. 
 
 On the part of the claimant it was contended that the production of 
 the written instructions to Coleman «& Co. was sufliciently excuse«l, and 
 parol evidence of their (contents was therefore i)roperly admitted. That 
 such i)roof might [iroperly be made before the commission, though not 
 nuule in the prize court. That Edinon<l, J)avenport & Co. as assignees 
 of Coleman, though citizens of the United States, were entitled to a 
 standing before the commission, and quodd this claim were to be deemed 
 British subjects, and that the claim might properly be prosecuted here 
 by Edinond, Davenport & Co. as assignees of Coleman. 
 
 The claimant'., counsel cited, under the lasthead,llunterr.s'. ThoUn-fed 
 i^tates, 5 Teters, 17o; Turner vs. The Bank of North America, 4 Uallas, 
 8; IMontalet r.9. IVIurray, 4Cranch, 40; Young r.s'. Bryan, (' Wheat, 14(5; 
 IMallan r,s-. Torrance, 9 tW., HST: Evans rs. Gee, 11 Peters, 80; Coti'ey rs. 
 The Planters' Bank, 13 How., 187. 
 
 The commission unanimously disallowed the claim. 
 
 The Sir William Peel ; Edwin Gerard, No. 243, claimant for himself 
 and insurers and underwriters. 
 
 This case and the three following cases, of the Dashing Wjuve, tlie 
 Volant, and the Science, were intimately co!inected in character and 
 circumstances, and were argued and submitted together. The Sir Wil- 
 liam Peel was captured by a United States war-vessel on the 11th Sep- 
 tember, 18G3, while lying at anchor at the mouth of the Kio Grande, 
 the stream dividing the territories of the United States from those of 
 Mexico, and upon which, about forty miles from its mouth, lay on the 
 right bank the Mexican port of Matamoras, and on the left bank the 
 United States port of Brownsville, then in possession of the confederate 
 forces. The place at which she lay was held by the United States prize 
 courts to be within Mexican and neutral waters. She was taken by the 
 captors into the port of New Orleans, there libelled in the district court 
 of the United States, and on the 6th June, 1804, a decree of restitution 
 was rendered in that court, certifying reasonable cause of seizure, and 
 providing "that the question as to costs and expenses be reserved 
 for further action." From this decree the United States appealed to 
 the Supreme Court. Subsequently, on the hearing in the district court 
 
 
AGKNTS REPORT. 
 
 101 
 
 of tlio (|ii«istioii thus n'seived, the fbllowinj^ decreo was miule on the oil 
 JiiiM! 1.S05: 
 
 Oil flu! prcliiiiiiiary trial nf thin caiiso, coiiMidfriiiu; tliat Ui« jxtsilioii nf tin- Sir Wil- 
 liam I'rcl, Nvlicii captiirt'il, wan a inaftiT of (lonht. and witli a view to scf this (ini'Mtioii 
 iit rest, tlic (Miiirt alhiwcd tlio caiitors ruitiicr pionf, and I'Xluiidi'd to tlin claiiiiiiiits tlio 
 Hiunit privilt'fid iftlioy (diimo to accopt it. 
 
 Tim rcsiiltof tlio wlioiu tcsliiiiony satislicd tlm mind of tin- coiiit tlial tin- Sir Wiiliain 
 reel was cai>tiircd wlii'ii aiudiorrd .south of tiic, liim dividing I lie waters of IIk- K'io 
 (iiandc, and wIkmi, tht'icforo, slie was in noiitnil watniM. On that h;''"'"><1 thiMoiir* 
 del reed licf ri'st itntioii ; hut fiitfitaiiiinj; ^fiavf doiihts as to thi- ohjcct of iicf voyay;i', ho 
 
 ^lavc, ind 1, tliat hut for this consideration, that siio was eaptnred in neutral watersi 
 
 the, court should havo decreed her condemnation, it is now ordered and (hcreed that 
 the costs and charges cuiiHcquent upon the capturu bu paid by tliu claiiuiints, and that 
 danuij^cH he refused. 
 
 From this dccire tlu'chiimiuits appealed to the Siipreine C-oint of tlie 
 United States. IJoth ai>peals were heard tojj^ether in the Supreme Court, 
 and that court atlirnv^'' the Judjitnent of rer^titiition, inchidiiij^ its wr 
 fuiate of reasonable ciiuso of seizure, rendered June 0, 18(U, and re- 
 versed the decree of .".d June, l.S().">, char^inj? the claimants witii c>)sts, 
 antl remanded the ase 'o the district court, with directions that no 
 costs or expenses ue allowed Co either party as ajjainst the other. The 
 (!ase in the Supreme Court is reported in "> Wallace, jiayes 517 to .".'J(>. 
 Tlu.' opinion of that Court delivered by Chief Justice Chase is as follows : 
 
 Keffularly in cases ofjirize no ovidtMice isadniissildeon the lirst hearin<f, excei»t that 
 wiiich conies from the ship, either in the paiiers or tlie testimony of persons found on 
 board. 
 
 If upon this evidence tlio case is not sulHiMently cli^ar to warrant condemnation or 
 restitution, opportunity is jjiven by tin; court, <'ithi>r of its own ac<'ord or upon motion 
 and proper grounds shown, to introduce additional evidciuco under an order for further 
 proof. 
 
 In the case now before us some testimony was taken, preparatory to th ) first heariufj, 
 of p<u'sons not found on board the sjiii*, nor, indeed, in any way connected witli her. 
 
 This evidence was propiirly excluded by the district judjijo, and the hisaring took 
 place on the projier proofs. 
 
 Upon tiiiit hearing au order for further proof was made, allowing the libellants and 
 captors on the cue side, and the claimants on the other, to put in additional evidence ; 
 and such tsvidenco was put in accordingly on both sides. 
 
 The i)reparatory evidence on tiie lirst hearing consisted of the dciiositions of the 
 master of the ship, the mate, and one seaman. No papers were produced, for none 
 were found on board ; a circumstance explained by the statement of the master, tliat all 
 the papers belonging to the vessel, except the lighter-men's receipts for the cargo, were 
 with the English consul and the consignees of the ship at ilatamoras. 
 
 The depositions established the neutral ownership of the ship and cargo. They 
 provt.'d that the Sir William Peel was a liritish merchantman ; that she had brought 
 a general cargo, no part of which was contraband, from Liverpool to Matamoras; that 
 this cargo, except an inconsiderable portion, had been delivered to the consignee at the 
 latter port; that the c(»ttou found on board was part of her return cargo; that it was 
 owned by neutrals, and i.ad a neutral destination ; and that the sliip, when captured, 
 was in Mexican waters, well south of the boundary between Mexico and Texas. 
 
 This proof clearly required restitution. The order for further proof was probably 
 made upon the rejected depositions, which, though inadmissible as evidence for con- 
 demnation, may have been allowed to be used as atlldavits oq the uiotiou lor the order. 
 
 The further proof, when taken, waa coufiictiug. 
 
 
 
I: '! ' r.^rr 
 
 102 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 iiiii- 
 
 Hi' 
 
 *: ;ll. 
 
 
 >• ' ii 
 
 il'i;* 
 
 ! • \' 
 
 The weight of evidence, we think, put the vessel, at the time of capture, in Mexican 
 waters; but if tlie sliip or cargo was enemy property, or either was otiierwise liiil)lo to 
 condemnation, that circumstance by itself would not avail the claimants in a pri/o 
 court. It might constitute a ground of claim by the neutral power, whose territory 
 had suffered trespass, for apology or indemnity. IJiit neither an enemy, nor a neutral 
 acting tlie pait of an enemy, can demand restitution of captured i)roperty on the sole 
 ground of capture in neutral waters. 
 
 We must therefore look further into the case. 
 
 There is some evidence which justifiessnspicion. Several witnesses state facts which 
 tend to prove that the Peel was in the employment of the rebel government, and that 
 l)art, at least, of the cotton laden upon her as return cargo was in fact rebel property. 
 
 There are statements, on the other hand, which make it probable that the Ptiel was 
 in trutli wliat she professed to be, a merchant-steamer, belonging to neutral merchants, 
 and nothing more; that her cargo was consigned in good faith by neutral owners for 
 sale at Matamoras, or to be conveyed across tlie river and sold in Texas, as it miglit law- 
 fully be, not being contraband ; that the cotton was purchased by neutrals and on neu- 
 tral acccnnt, with the proceeds of the cargo or other money. 
 
 In this conlliot of evidence wo do not think ourselves warranted in condemning, or 
 in quite excusing, the vessel or her cargo. We shall, therefore, aflflrm the decree by the 
 district court, and direct restitution, without costs or expenses to either party as against 
 the other. 
 
 This opiuion sufficiently states tlie facts of the case as appearing by 
 the evidence in the prize court, and those facts were not substantially 
 changed by any evidence taken before the cominis.sion. 
 
 The claim before the commission was prosecuted by Edwin Gerard 
 as assignee of the owners of the vessel and cargo, and as attorney-in- 
 fact for the insurers and underwriters, some one hundred and fifty in 
 number. The vessel and cargo were fully insured against capture as 
 well as other lo.sses ; and upon the capture the owners abandoned ves- 
 sel and cargo to the underwriters, who accepted the abandonment and 
 paid as for a total loss. Pending the case in the district court, forty 
 bales of cotton, part of the cargo, were sold by order of the court, and 
 the proceeds paid into the registry of the court. And, pending the case 
 on appeal in the Supreme Court, the vessel, her tackle, stores, t&t;., and 
 the remainder of her cargo, having been api)raised at thesumof $8i57,04li. 
 United States currency, were, by order of the court, delivered to the 
 claimants on their furnishing stipulations in the said appraised value 
 with security. The claimants claimed the sum of £35,314.10.9, the sum 
 of the amounts paid by the insurers to the assured less the net salvage 
 obtained by the sale of the vessel and cargo, and the further sum of 
 $309,000, demurrage from the 11th September, 18G3. to the loth Sep- 
 tember, 1864, besides interest on both said sums. 
 
 The counsel for the claimant filed, in No. 391, a general argument 
 applicable to the cases of the Sir William Peel, the Dashing Wave, the 
 Volant, the Science, and the Gezieua Heligonda. In this argument he 
 maintained that the liio Grande being the common boundary between 
 Mexico at peace and Texas at war with the United States, and the naviga- 
 tion of the river being, by the law of nations as well as by the treaty of 
 Guadalupe Uidalgo, free and common to the citizens of both republics, the 
 
AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 103 
 
 United States could not l.iwfuUy blockade that river so as to interfere with 
 the free ingress and ogress of neutral vessels engaged in trade with Mata- 
 uioras, or with the right of such vessels to lie at anchor in the roadstead 
 at the mouth of the liio Grande, wliile engaged in lawfully discharging 
 or receiving cargoes ou neutral account through the custom-house at 
 Matanioras, or so as to interfere with inland trade carried ou across the 
 Rio Grande, from Mexico to Texas or from Texas to Mexico. Tliat the 
 British trade with Matamoras was a legitimate trade according to 
 established principles of public law. That these doctrines were fully recog- 
 nized bytheSupreiue Courtof the United States in the case of the Peter- 
 hoff", (5 Wallace, p. 28;) and by the courts of the United States in other 
 cases, notably that of the Labuan in the district court of the southern 
 district of New Yorlc. That it had also been fully recognized by the 
 Secretary of State of the United States, in the diplomatic correspond- 
 ence with the Dritish legation, concerning the cases of the Labuan, the 
 Magicienne, the reterhoff, the Sir William Peel, and other cases; and 
 by the legislative authorities of the same in ai)propriations for pa^ meut 
 of the awards in the cases of the Labuan, &c. 
 
 That,notwithstaiuling the recognition by tlie courts and executive and 
 legislative authorities of the United States of these piiiu;iples, in practice 
 they had been disregarded, and British merchant- vessels, whether found 
 on thehigh seas and destined to the mouth of the KioGrande^ with cargoes 
 consigned to Matamoras, or anchored olf the month of the river and en- 
 gaged in good faith in tlie dischargeof neutral cargoes for Matamoras, and 
 in taking ou board cargoes purchased at that port on neutral account, 
 had been subjected to capture andadjndication as maritime prize. 
 
 That these captures had been the subject of earnest but temperate re- 
 monstrance on the part of Her Majesty's government, and were regarded 
 as violations of the just maritime rights of Great Britain, and as as- 
 sumptions of belligerent power not warranted by the law of nations. 
 
 That the claims. arising out of these captures were among the most 
 important in the contemi)lation of Her Majesty's government in the es- 
 tablishment of the Joint High Commission, and by that commission, in 
 the provisions of articles 12 to 17 of the treaty providitig for the estab- 
 lishment and conduct of this commission. That this commission had full 
 jurisdiction of the claims in question, and to review and overrule the final 
 judgments of the prize courts of last resort of the United States. 
 
 That by the terms of the treaty, and of the " solemn declaration " sub- 
 scribed by the commissioners pursuant to the provisions of the treaty, 
 they were to decide each and all of the claims "according to justice 
 and equity." That this provision gave to the present commission a 
 broader and more comprehensive power than was given by the 7tli article 
 of the treaty of 1794 between the United States and Great Britain (8 
 Stat, at L., 121) to the commission provided for by that article, which was 
 required to decide the claims referred to it according to "justice, equity, 
 and the laws of nations." That the omission of the last-named element 
 
1 ! ; ^ 
 
 1 
 
 i ii 
 
 ,i i 3 
 
 ■J 
 
 Ifi 
 
 m ^ 
 
 104 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 of the prescribed rule of conduct from the present treaty was significant. 
 That under the present treaty the judguieuts of the American prize 
 tribunals were to be tested in each case hj this commission accord- 
 ing to the principles of "justice and equity" only. That "whether 
 the law of nations justifies those decisions or not, unless they are 
 also justified in the conscientious judgment of the commissioners 
 by justice and equity, the compensation which they fail to give must be 
 awarded to the parties." That " the inquiry is not limited to the questiou 
 whether the law of nations entitled the claimants to compensation, but 
 extends beyond that narrow range, and its broad scope is whether the 
 parties are equitably entitled, under .all the circumstances surrounding 
 the cases, to receive Indemnification for their losses." That it was the 
 intention of the framers of the treaty to confer upon this commission "a 
 more extensive jurisdiction, and greater power to do justice than was 
 exercisable by the prize courts of the United States <leciding according 
 to the law of nations." That the technical rule of tlie prize courts, that 
 "probable cause" not merely excuses, but in some cases justifies, a cap- 
 ture, is a hard rule, " admitted to be opposed to the fundamental ideas of 
 justice and equity,'' ;;nd " only to be justified upon grounds which justify 
 the extieme severity of the other operations ot war." That therefore this 
 commission was not bound to refuse damages in cases of restitution to 
 the claimants, even "if they should think that the appellate prize court 
 was warranted in its decision that there existed, in the sense of the 
 Xirize law, probable cause of capture." 
 
 That if; however, it should be held that the only inquiry to be instituted 
 by the commission in such cases is, "whether there were such reasonable- 
 grounds of suspicion as constitute what is technically called i)robable 
 cause of capture," the commissioners should nevertheless adjudicate ac- 
 cording to their own judgment of the facts and the law constituting the 
 foundation of probable cause, " unembarrassed by the special and techni- 
 cal rules of the prize code." That though the commission is not there- 
 fore bound by rhe principles held by the prize courts in their adjudica- 
 tions, but has a larger and more equitable jurisdiction, yet the decisions 
 of prize courts of the highest authority have established the duty of 
 condemning captors in costs and damages where they have unjustly in- 
 terfered with the operation of lawful neutral commerce. In this connec- 
 tion the counsel cited the cases of the Elizabeth, 1 Acton, 10; the Ostsee, 
 9 JMoore's P. C. II., 150 ; the Gerasimo, 11 id., 88 ; the ^Newport, id, 187. 
 
 In answer to these propositions in the general argument the counsel 
 for the United States fully admitted the propositions as held and recog- 
 nized by the judicial, executive, and legislative authorities of the United 
 States, that the bona-Jiilc trade with Matamoras was a legitimate trade; 
 that the United States could not lawfully blockade the mouth of the 
 Kio Grande or the port of Matamoras, or any other Mexican port, nor 
 interfere with the legitimate ingress or egress of neutral vessels en- 
 gaged in trade with Matamoras, or with the right of such vessels to lie 
 
agent's report. 
 
 105 
 
 tecbiii- 
 there- 
 lulica- 
 ;i.sioiis 
 
 iliity of 
 
 stly iu- 
 onnec- 
 
 Ostsoe, 
 (I 187. 
 ouusel 
 recog- 
 
 Uuited 
 trade ; 
 of the 
 't, nor 
 els eii- 
 to lie 
 
 at anclior in the roadstead at the mouth of the Rio Grande while en- 
 gaged in tlie bona-Jide discharge or receiving of neutral cargoes for or 
 from that i)ort. 
 
 lie denied that in practice the United States had violated those prin- 
 ciples or undertaken to assert rights inconsistent with them, but main- 
 tained that, on the contrary, the State Department of the United States, 
 in its diplomatic correspondence, had recognized their validity; insist- 
 ing only that the question of the application of these principles to the 
 facts of each particular case was to be determined by the regular prize 
 tribunals, which might be safely trusted to do entire justice in every 
 case. 
 
 That the decisions of those courts in the various cases referred to 
 by the counsel for the claimant, fully recognized those princii)les and 
 applied them to the facts ai>pearing in each case; and that in the dis- 
 position not only of those cases, but generally of all the prize cases aris- 
 ing during the war, those courts had carefully adhered to the piinciples 
 of international law as recognized in the prize courts of all civilized coun- 
 tries, ami had extended to neutral vessels and cargoes a degree of pro- 
 tection, to say the least, quite as ample and complete as tliat aflorded 
 by the [)rize courts of Great Britain, under the leiirned and widely known 
 and recognized <lecisions of Sir William Scotu and his successors in 
 those courts. 
 
 lie admitted fully the Jurisdiction of the commission, and their power 
 and duty under the treaty to review the final jndgnuuits of the prize 
 courts of ultimate resort of the respective nations, as not coiu;lusive 
 upon the resj^'ctive governments, which might intervene on behalf of 
 tlieir subjects against the judgments of those courts, such Jurisdiction 
 having been long since fully established bj' the direct decision of the 
 commission u])on that question, and not having since been disputed. 
 
 As to the rules and principles by which the commission were to bo 
 governe<l in their decisions upon these cases, he maintained that the rule 
 prescribed by tiie treaty, that the commissioners should " impartially and 
 carefully examine and decide to the best of their judgment, and accord- 
 ing to justice and equity,"' had in no respect abolished or changed those 
 well-settled principles, in accordance with which the tribunals of the 
 civilized world have been accustomed to decide upon the validity of cap- 
 tures and the respective rights of belligerents and neutrals in relation to 
 them. That "Justice and equity " were not to be attained by a disregard 
 of Judicial precedents and established principles of judiciial proceeding. 
 
 That to adopt the doctrine propounded by the counsel for the claimant 
 was to substitute the mere fancy or caprice of a tribunal acting without 
 guidance or authority, for those sound rules established ami followed by 
 judicial tribunals, in the light of the learning and experience of ages, for 
 the very furtherance of "justice and equity." That true "justice and 
 equity" are recognized by all Judicial tribunals, municipal or interna- 
 tional, as attainable only by well-detiued and settled rules and i)riQci« 
 
 : Apr 
 
 U 
 
 IM 
 
 
 ^ 
 
m\ 
 
 m 
 
 "^T^ 
 
 ■mnlittrW 
 
 ^^W :.'\ 
 
 llf 
 
 ':ii: 
 
 n 
 
 jlilf ! 
 
 i < 
 
 i'l 
 
 
 106 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 plep of geiieml application. That if tliis idea is lo.stslj>htof, substantial 
 justice as well as substantial equity is at an end ; and the rij;ht s of parties 
 are committed to the absolute and uncontrolled will and caprice of the 
 judicial ollicer, instead of the protection of the law. 
 
 Thiit while, therefore, the right of th ; commission to sit in Judgment 
 upon the validity and correctness of the judgments of th(i prize courts 
 of the United States upon these cases is not now questioned; such valid- 
 ity and correctness are to be determined only in accordance with the set- 
 tled principles of [)rize law, as recognized by the two countries. 
 
 That in reviewing the judgments of the highest ai)pellate courts of 
 either of the two coutktries, high contracting parties to the treaty, the 
 high reputation of those courts respectively, the weight uniformly given 
 to the decisions of each by the other, and the rules of international com- 
 ity and mutual respect, dictate that such judgments are not to be rashly 
 or hastily overruled or reversed; but only on a clear showing of a viola- 
 tion of the rules of international law in re miniinc dubUi. That the 
 question to be decided in these cases is whether injustice has been done 
 to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty by the judicial tribunals of the 
 United States; and that the commission certainly cannot And that such 
 injustice has been done, unless theyiind that the well-settled principles 
 of international law have been violated by those tribunals. 
 
 In answer to the proposition of the claimant's counsel, that the rule of 
 the prize courts disallowing damages to the claimant where " probable 
 cause" appears for the capture, is one of extreme severity as against 
 the neutral trader, " opposed to the fundamental ideas of justice and 
 equity," and " a hard rule, admitted to be such by all writers on the 
 law of nations," the counsel for the United States cited the language 
 of Dr. Lushingtou, in the case of the Leucade, (2 Spinks, 236,) as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Lord Sto%vcll adininistorod the prize law on groat and comprehensive principles. His 
 object WU8 tliat, on th;) whole, eqnaljnstieo should bo done to the ri;;li^s of the bellig- 
 erent and the justclaiiasof neutral nations; but ho did not seek in eaeli particular caso 
 to do the most perfect justice. Many passages ia his judgments might he cited to show 
 this; whereby ho declared that, though there might ho hardships in particular cases, 
 both to captors and especially neutrals, yet, on the whole, the balance w • "" favor Of 
 the neutral rather than agiiinst him. Lord Stowell nsod so say, though i)lock:ade was 
 u hardship on a neutral, and the right of search was a hardship on a neutral, yet it 
 was to be recollected the whole trade was always open to them — the carrying trade in 
 time of war. He used always to say, and rely greatly on that rule of law, that, in the 
 first instance, the ease should be heard ou the evidence of the claimants themselvja, 
 namely, the ship's papers and depositions. 
 
 In the case of the Diligentia, (1 Dods., 404,) where the captors complained of what 
 Lord Stowell was about to do, Lord Stowell made tha same answer; ho told them, 
 though they might complain in particular instances, yet ho mnst adhere to the general 
 principle, though the consecjnences might press hard upon them. Now, no person more 
 readily acknowledged the truth of the principle, that a claimant should be indemnitied 
 for a capture made without probable cause, than Lord Stowell ; no one more powerfully 
 manifested it ; but that will necessarily presuppose that the court is in possession of 
 the truth. 
 
agent's report. 
 
 107 
 
 It iH oqnally contrary to common justice that a cantor should bo mulcted in costs 
 aud daiiia.<?!)s whoro ho has faithfully porfonnud his duty, and had, in truth, adi'iiuato 
 cause for the seizure. Yet this cause of seizure mijjht not apimar on tlie face of the 
 diipositiiHis and sliip's papiM's. Sj it miglit he iu blockade casiis, and in numerous 
 others wliich miirlit be stated. 
 
 Ill tho case of the Sir Williain Peel the following additional points 
 Avere made on behalf of the United States: 
 
 1. Tiiat the vessel and cargo not having been charged with costs un- 
 der the linal decree of the Supreme Court, the only question before the 
 commission was as to the right of the owners to damages; that the 
 claimants were in no position to make such claim before the commission ; 
 that any right to damages in the prize courts was barred by the first 
 decree of the district court of (»th June, 1801, which adjudged reason- 
 able cause of seizure, and that from this decree or from any i)art of it 
 the claimants had never appealed; that the " (juestion as to costs and 
 expenses" reserved by that decree was plainly the question only whether 
 costs and expenses should be allowed against the claimants, tlieir right 
 to claim costs and expenses against the captors being barred by the 
 certificate of " reasonable cause of seizure" contained in the same decree; 
 that tiie claimants, having failed to appeal from so much of this decree 
 as certified reasonable cause of seizure, must be considered, in the lan- 
 guage of the letter of Sir William Scott and Dr. NichoU to Mr Jay, (3 
 Phillimore, 554,) to have "acknowledged the justice of the senten<;e in 
 that respect," and that within the rule of practice already settletl by 
 the commission the claimants, having neither appealed nor rendered any 
 reason for not having appealed, their claim must be disallowed; that 
 the only effect of the second decree of the district court of 3d June, 18G5, 
 from which the claimants did appeal, was to charge the claimants with 
 the costs and charges of the captors, and that on their api)eal from this 
 decree they had had full relief by the judgment of the Supreme Court ; 
 that it ha<l never been possible for the Supreme Court to award damages 
 in favor of the claimant had they been so disposed, such damages being 
 barred by the certificate of probable cause in the first decree of Gth 
 June, 1804, from which the claimants had not appealed ; that the claim- 
 ants had therefore no standing before the commission to claim dam- 
 ages. - 
 
 2. That the proofs before the prize court fully sustained the finding 
 of that court of probable cause ; and that the depositions of Clark and 
 Haggard, taken in the district court, but rejected by that court on the 
 purely artificial and technical rule that such evidence must come in the 
 first instance from the vessel herself and those on board of her, were 
 here competent evidence under the terras of the treaty, and entitled to 
 be weighed by the commission without regard to such artificial rule of 
 exclusion ; aud that those depositions not only greatly strengthened 
 the ca.se made before the prize court as one of probable cause, but in con- 
 nection with the other proofs would have amply warranted a decree of 
 condemnation. 
 

 mu'\ 
 
 rmn 
 
 mMU 
 
 I" i i::i' 
 
 ,!:■'[ 
 
 
 108 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 3. Tliat the fact that the vessel was taken in neutral waters, in no 
 respect chanjied the case as to the respective rights of captors and 
 claimants. That in such case it was only the neutral power whose wa- 
 ters had been violated that had cause of complaint; and such power 
 ou\y could be heard to raise the question of violation of her waters. 
 That if the United States by this capture had violated any rights of 
 Mexico, that was a question to be settled between the United States 
 and Mexico. That so far as the questions between these claimants 
 and the United States were concerned, the case stood in all respects 
 the same as if the vessel had been captured upon the high soas. 
 
 Ih support of this point the counsel of the United States cited the Puris- 
 sinia Coucepcion, G Kob., 45 ; the Etrusco, 3 id., 31 ^ the Twee Gebroe- 
 ders, id., 1G2 ; the Eliza Anne, 1 Dodson, 244 ; the Diligentia, id., 412 ; 
 the Anne, 3 Wheat., 447; 2 Twiss, 448; the Anna, 5 Kob., 373; the 
 Vrow Anna Catherina, id., 15. 
 
 4. That by sibandonment, acceptance of the same, and payment as for 
 a total loss, the entire right to any and all reclamation for <laniages or for 
 the proceeds of the vessel passed from the owners of the ship and cargo 
 to the insurers, and this irrespective of the question of the illegality of 
 the contract of insurance, the contract being an executed one by the volun- 
 tary act of the parties. That these i usurers were not to be taken as parties 
 to the memorial, which was that of Mr. Gerard. That Gerard himself had 
 derived by his assignment from the owners no title, their claims having 
 vested in the insurers. And that if the assignment to him would otherwise 
 have conveyed any interest, it was void as acharapertous contract b3' which 
 Gerard, an attorney, without any previous interest in the transaction, 
 had i)urchased the claim as a matter of speculation and for the purpose 
 of its prosecution against the United States. That by the law of Eng- 
 land, the purchase of a chose in action by an attorney for the purpose 
 of prosecution was illegal; that the same rule prevailed in most, if not 
 all, of the United States; and that in practice it ought to prevail in 
 international law. That such champertous purchases of claims, void by 
 the common law of both countries, should not be recognized as lawful 
 transactions, or be permitted as the basis of claims to be prosecuted by 
 one of those governments against the other. 
 
 5. That the contracts of insurance by these insurers with the assured 
 were deliberate contracts to indemnify British subjects for the conse- 
 quences of attempted violation of the belligerent rights of the United 
 States ; that such contracts, when sought to be enforced in the courts of 
 the United States, would be held void by those courts; that like con- 
 tracts, in relation to attempted violation of the belligerent rights of 
 Great Britain, if prosecuted in the courts of that kingdom, would be 
 held vo'd by her courts ; that, therefore, in an international tribunal 
 constituted by solemn treaty between the two governments, the comity 
 of nations and a i)roper regard by one friendly government of the 
 rights of another should preclude the admissibility of such claims. That 
 
 iML 
 
agent's report. 
 
 109 
 
 these contracts of insuranco were distiiiguisliable from " war risks" 
 recognized by all nations as legitimate subjects of insurance, and such 
 as were dis(uissed among; the American claims before the tribunal at 
 (Geneva; those were assurances of the merchant-vessels of a belliger- 
 ent against capture by their enemy, and such as are recognized in all wars 
 of maritime nations as a permissible and necessary means to the pres- 
 ervation of any commerce whatever to a belligerent; but these are 
 deliberate contracts to indemnity a neutral who, by n.irefully excluding 
 the " free from cai)ture" clause, admits that he is eng ged in an attempt 
 to violate the belligerent rights of a friendly nation. That though the 
 violation of blockade by a neutral is not held by international law to 
 be strictly a crime, it is an unfriendly act, prejudicial to the character and 
 interests of the neutral government of which the violator is a citizen, and 
 to her honest and legitimate traders, and calculated to promote discord 
 and hostility between friendly nations. That a contract to indemnify the 
 citizen of a neutral government against the lawful consecpiences of his 
 own wrongful act against a friendly government, should never be made 
 a ground of reclamation by the government of the wrong-doer against 
 the injured government, nor be countenanced by an international tribu- 
 nal organized as a means of amicable settlement between two such 
 governments. 
 
 On the part of the claimants it was contended in answer that the 
 Supreme Courf- of the United States had in effect passed upon all the 
 questions involved in the prize court, and had finally adjudged that the 
 claimants should not have damages against the captors ; ami had deter- 
 mined that the fact of the capture having taken pla(!e in the waters of 
 Mexico, a neutral and friendly nation, did not make the capture a wrong- 
 fnl one as between the captors and the claimants, ^Mexico not having 
 intervened. That on the proofs in the case there were no such (jircum- 
 stances of suspicion as to afford probable cause of capture within the 
 doctrines of the prize courts. That if such probable cause within the 
 rales of those courts existed, it was plain, from the proofs before the 
 commission, that actual injustice had been done to the owners of the 
 vessel and cargo ; that the vessel was engaged in a legitimate commerce ; 
 and that, according to justice and equity, the claimants should be reim- 
 bursed for the losses in consequence of the capture ultimately adjudged 
 a wrongful one, even though the capture w ere held excused by the doc- 
 trine of probable cause under pri^e law. That the capture of the vessel 
 within the neutral waters of Mexico was in violation of international 
 law, and absolutely illegal and void. That the doctrines of the priza 
 courts that such a capture could only be questioned by the government 
 whose territory had been violated, appliel only to the case of an enemy 
 ship captured in neutral waters and not to the case of a neutral vessel 
 so captured. That, even if that doctrine applied in the last named case, 
 it was only as a technical rule of the prize courts requiring an interven- 
 tion there by the government wbose territory b d been violated, and 
 
mrr 
 
 110 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COJIMISSION. 
 
 was not applieablo in the case of an international tiilmnal, which should 
 be controllcil by tlie consideration that the capture was an illegal one 
 under iiiteruational law. 
 
 The counsel lor the claimant cited Dana's Wheaton, §§ 171, 420, 428, 
 429, 430; the Vrow Anna Catherina, o Hob., IS; Lawrence's Wheaton, 
 215 n., 715; Wlieaton on Captures, (api)endix,) 341; the Anne, 3 Wheat. 
 Hep., 435; the Richmond, 9 Crauch, 102; the Peterhott', 5 Wall., 28; 
 the Bermuda, 3 Wall., 557. 
 
 The counsel lor the claimant also maintained that the insurers and 
 underwriters were to be deemed parties to the memorial by Mr. Gerard, 
 as their attorney in fact; that the assijjfnment to Gerard was a valid 
 one; and that the contracts of insurance were also valid and entitled 
 to recognition and protection under international law. 
 
 The commission (Mr. Commissioner Frajcer dissenting) gave the claim- 
 ants an award for $272,920. I am advised that the award was placid 
 by the majority of the commission on the ground that the capture within 
 the neutral waters of Mexico was absolutely illegal and void ; and that 
 the claimants were entitled to make reclamation on that ground, irre- 
 spective of any question of complaint or intervention on the part of 
 Mexico. 
 
 In this case, in connection with the cases of the Science, the Volant, 
 and the Dashing Wave, Mr. Commissioner Frazer read u written opin- 
 ioo, which will be found in the appendix, M. 
 
 i-i;' s 
 
 li 
 
 
 : ■ 
 
 ;■!■ 
 I 
 
 II \ 
 
 ■:.! 
 
 J! S 
 
 The brig Dashing Wave; Charles Le Quesne et al, No. 305, claimants 
 for vessel; Edwin Gerard, No. 244; Simpson & Pitman, No. 39(); Mc- 
 Dowell & Halliday, No. 397; the Thames & ]Mersey Insurance Company, 
 (limited,) No. 427; and the British and Foreign Marine Insurance Com- 
 pany (limited) et al., No. 428, claimants for cargo. 
 
 This vessel was captured while at anchor off the mouth of the Ilio 
 Grande, on the 5th November, 1803; was taken into the port of New 
 Orleans and there libelled in the United States district court. A decree 
 was made in that court, 16th June, 1804, adjudging restitution of the 
 vessel to the claimants; from which decree the United States appealed 
 to the Supreme Court. Further proceedings were had iu the district 
 court on the question of costs and damages ; and, on the 3d June, 1865, 
 a decree was made adjudging that the costs .and charges consequent 
 upon the capture be paid by the claimants, and that damages be refused 
 to them. 
 
 From this decree the claimants appealed to the Supreme Court. The 
 Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the district court restoring the 
 vessel and cargo ; but directed that the costs and expenses consequent 
 upon the capture be rateably apportioned between the vessel and the 
 shipment of coin hereinafter named ; and that the residue of the cargo 
 be exempted from contribution. The district court determined, upoii the 
 
agent's report. 
 
 Ill 
 
 lih slionid 
 Ic^iiil one 
 
 42G, 428, 
 kV ilea ton, 
 aWhont. 
 Villi., 28 ; 
 
 [rers and 
 
 . Gerard, 
 
 s a valid 
 
 entitled 
 
 lie claini- 
 LS i)lacLid 
 re within 
 and that 
 ind, irre- 
 3 part ot 
 
 » Volant, 
 ten opin- 
 
 1 aim ants 
 39(5; Mc- 
 ompany, 
 ace Com- 
 
 tlie Kio 
 : of New 
 A. decree 
 m of the 
 ijjpealed 
 I district 
 ne, 18G5, 
 [isequent 
 3 refused 
 
 rt. The 
 ring the 
 isequent 
 and the 
 he cargo 
 upoji the 
 
 proofs, that the vessel when captured was anchored south of the line divid- 
 ing the waters of the Rio (Irande, and was therefore in neiitrwl waters. 
 
 The Sni)reine Court held, on the contrary, that the i)roors clearly 
 showed her to have been anchored north of the division line above 
 named and within the waters of Texas, then in possession of the enemies 
 of the United States. The case in the Supreme (Joiirt is reported in .'>th 
 Wallace, pages 170 to 178; to which report reference is mad(; for the 
 statement of the peculiar facts of the case. No proofs were made before 
 the commission substantially changing the facts- as there stated. 
 
 Many of the questions involved in this case were identical with those 
 involved in the case of the Sir William Peel above reported, and there- 
 fore need not be again stated. 
 
 Edwin Gerard, No. 2t4, claimed as assignee of the insurers of Messrs. 
 F. DeLizardi & Co., the alleged owners of 12,000 British sovereigns, a 
 portion of the cargo upon which, together with the vessel, the(!osts and 
 expenses consequent upon the capture were apportioned by the decree 
 of the Supreme Court. 
 
 Simpson & Pitman, No. 300, and McDowell & TTalliday, No. 397, claim- 
 ants as owners respectively of i^arts of the cargo exemi)t.ed from con- 
 tribution by the final decree, claimed damages by the depreciation 
 of the cargo during its detention, and for costs and "expenses to which 
 they had been subjected. 
 
 The insurance companies, Nos. 427 and 428, claimed respectively as 
 insurers of portions of the cargo in like manner exempted from contri- 
 bution and wliicli had been duly abandoned to them as insurers, and 
 payments made by them respectively as upon a total loss. 
 
 Upon the two last-named claims of the insurance companies, ques- 
 tions were raised on the part of the United States, as to the validity of 
 the contract of insurance in the same regard reported above in the case 
 of the Sir William Peel, and also as to the riglit of the insurance com- 
 panies to recover in respect of portions of the cargo owned by persons 
 not appearing to have been British subjects. This last-named question 
 was subsequently more distinctly raised and passed upon in the case of 
 the Circassian, and will be hereafter reported under that case. 
 
 The commission nnanimously disallowed all the claims. 
 
 . The Brig Yolarit, John Amy et al., No. 388, claimants for vessel ; 
 Edwin Gerard, No. 245, claimant for cargo. 
 
 This vessel was captured on the 5th November, 1863, at the mouth ot 
 the Rio Grande, taken into the port of New Orleans, and there libelled. 
 By a decree rendered on the 11th June, 1804, the district court con- 
 demned the vessel and cargo as lawful prize. From this dec. je the 
 claimants appealed to the Supreme Court, which court reversed the de- 
 cree of condemnation, but held that the capture was justified by " prob- 
 able cause," and adjudged restitution of the vessel on payment of costs 
 and charges. The case is reported in the Supreme Court in 5th Wal- 
 
 ^t tl 
 
112 
 
 AMEEICAN-I3RITISII CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 I '< I 
 
 |!:< 
 
 . . .1 
 
 . 'i 'i 
 
 Hi > 
 
 ■ p ! 
 
 laco, ]»i>. 170. ISO. It apppsircd that the vossel, whoii ('aptiinnl, was 
 anchored witliin Texan waters. 
 
 The ehiiiuaiits in No. ."iS.S chiinied as owners of the vessel for reim- 
 burscuient of the costs an<l charges paid by them, and for (hunages by 
 the (h'tention of tiie vessel. 
 
 Mr. (lerard, in No. 245, claimed, as assignee of the insurers of the 
 cargo to whom tlie same had been abandoned, and who liad i»aid as for 
 a total loss, about ;f 40,000, besides interest, for dei)reeiation of cargo 
 after tl»e s(M/nre, inclnding the value of nim'ty-three cases of brandy, 
 alleged to have been abstracted from the vessel while in custody of the 
 ollicers of the district court. 
 
 The (piestions involved in respect to this vessel are substantially 
 covered by (he report of the foregoing case of the Sir William I'eel, 
 and by tlu^ report of the case in 5th Wallace. 
 
 The claim of Amy and others, No. 38S, in respect of the vessel, was 
 unanimously disallowed by the comdnission. 
 
 In the case of Mv. (irerard, No. 245, the commission made an award 
 in favoi' of the claimant for $1,785, Mr. Commissioner Guruey dissent- 
 ing. ] am advised that this awar<l was made in respect of tlie brandj* 
 abstracted while in charge of the ollicers of the district court; and that 
 the otlier claims for damages in the case were disallowed. 
 
 The bark Science; Thomas E. Angell and others, claimants. No. 391. 
 
 Tliis vessel was captured at the same time and place with the Dash- 
 ing Wave and the Volant, libelled in the same court, and the same 
 decrees entered resj)ectively as in the case of the Dashing Wave, and 
 the same appeals taken by the respective parties to the supreme 
 Court. That court allirmed both judgments of the district court re- 
 storing the vessel, and charging her with the costs and expenses of 
 capture, finding upon the proofs that she was, when captured, anchored 
 within Texan waters, and that no excuse appeared for her being there. 
 The case in the Supreme Court is reported in 5th Wallace, pp. 178, 170. 
 
 The counsel for the claimants, in addition to the points above cited in 
 the case of the Sir WilUam Peel applicable to this case, contended 
 that the capture was one made in bad faith ; that the Science had 
 arrived off the mouth of the Uio Grande on the 11th August; that, 
 immediately on her arrival, she was boarded by au btticer of a United 
 States blockading vessel, who examined her papers and inspected her 
 cargo, and permitted her to anchor and discharge her outward cargo, 
 and take on board a large portion of her return cargo ; that the only 
 allegation made by the capturing officer was that her outward cargo 
 bad included cloth of the character and description used for confed- 
 erate uinforms ; that this allegation constituted no ground of capture, 
 and even if originally it might have afforded probable cause of cap- 
 ture, it ceitainly could not, after the vessel had been allowed to lie 
 three months in the offing, and take on board a valuable cargo of over 
 
AGKNTS RI:P0RT. 
 
 113 
 
 ,'!()() Imlos of cntion. Tliiit tlio fjict ofliiT hcin^- iit Jinclior witliin Texiiii 
 Wiitcrs, if it «'.\isti'(l, did not of itsi'lf (!oiisti(iitt' probahlo canst', tliore 
 Ik'Iiij;' no evi<l(M)(;t5 in tlnMijise to indicate an intention of violation of 
 tiu>. blockade ; that, by international law and nnder the. tnnity of (Jiiada- 
 Inpe llidal;;(), th(M'oa<lsti'ad at tlu! nn)nth of tile llio (ri.nide \vaM an 
 open roa<l.stead, wlie.re nentral vessels tradin;:;' with Matanioras had a 
 lij^ht 10 lie at aimhor, whether uortii or south of tlu5 conventional lino 
 between the United States and Mexicjo established by that treaiy ; 
 and that thc! United States conhl no more lawfnlly interfere with the en- 
 ioyinent of that ri,i;ht than theyconhi with theri^htof vessels in course 
 of the same tra«le to navi<rate the mouth and current of the river ; that 
 the rijuiit to the navifjation of the I'io (hande int^lnded the ri^ht to the 
 means without which such navigation could not be reasonably enjoyed — 
 ainon<>: others, the right to moor in the roadsteatl at its mouth. That, 
 even if the United States eoubl claim an exclusive right to occupy 
 the waters north of this line for the puri)ose of blockade, that a vessel 
 honestly engagtul in trade with JMatinnoras, and anchoring for that 
 purpose on tlie Texan side of the line, was entitled to notice or warn- 
 ing before it could be treated as intruding on forbidden ground, and 
 that a sei/uro without such notice was unjustifiable; that, in fact, the 
 proofs failed to establish that the vessel was lying north of the divid- 
 ing hue, and that the blockading vessels, by omitting to ap])ri/e her 
 that she was anchored in a place which they deemed an imi»roper 
 one, and by permitting her to be there and take on board her return 
 cargo, were estopped to allege that her position was an unlawful one. 
 
 The claimant's counsel cited the Terecita, 5 Wall., 180 ; ]Madeiros rs. 
 Hill, 8 JJing., 231; Nailor rs. Taylor, 9 liarn. & Cres., 718; Carring- 
 ton vs. Merchants' Insurance Conipany, 8 Peters, 517 ; Mr. Jefferson's 
 paper on the navigation of the Mississippi, 1 Am. State 1'aper.s, 2.">-l. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was contended that the Science, and 
 the other vessels of her class, coi not enter by reason of their di^aught 
 of water, and never attempted to enter, the mouth of the Kio Grande, 
 or to reach the port of JMatamoras. That, conceding her full right to 
 navigate that river and the waters through which its mouth was to bo 
 a[)proached, and even for that purpose to pass over the blockaded 
 waters of the Confederate States, it did not follow that she had the 
 right, for her own convenience and for the delivery of her cargo into 
 lighters, to cast anchor within those blockaded waters, and there lie 
 for weeks in a position from which access, by means of lighters to the 
 blockaded coast, was easier, by night or by day, than that to the neutral 
 port for which her cargo professed to be destined. That the United States 
 were lawfully entitled to blockade, and did blockade the sea-coast of 
 Texas, and that such blockade would be wholly nugatory if a vessel iu 
 the condition of the Science could claim and exercise the right to cast 
 anchor within the blockaded waters, and within three miles of the enemy's. 
 8 H 
 
 
114 
 
 AMKRICAN-imiTISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 1 
 
 ,1 -i 
 
 ■' 'i 
 
 i 
 
 :!'■. 
 
 ; ■ , 
 
 n 
 
 coast, froin wliicli it was cvi<l(Mit that she could, with groat facility, 
 hold coiiiiniiiiication with that coast. 
 
 The coiiiiiiission awarded to the claitnaiit the siini of $45,084, Mr. 
 Coiuinissioner Frazcr dissentingf. 
 
 The schooner Matainoras ; Oliver K. King, administrator, claimant, 
 No. 288. 
 
 This vessel was captured at the month of the Kio (IraJide at the same 
 time with the Dashing Wave, the Volant, and the Science, and libelled 
 in the United States district court at New Orleans. The district court, 
 on the proofs, de(!ided that, at the time of the cai)ture, she was in Mex- 
 ican waters, and gave Judgment of restitution, (lertifying reasonable 
 cause of capture, and refusing allowance of costs or expenses to the 
 claimant. No appeal was taken from the judgment of the district 
 court. 
 
 Under the order of the commission the claimant assigned as the rea- 
 son of his omission to apiteal, that, " in consequence of the short space 
 of time in which to appeal, only thirty days being alfowed for that pur- 
 pose, and the detention of the nmils, and tin; counsel in New Orleans not 
 having taken the appeal, the time to appeal expired." 
 
 On the part of the United States it was claimed that the proofs showed 
 probable cause of capture in the conduct and position of the Matamoras ; 
 but this was denied on the part of the claimants. The counsel for the 
 United States insisted that uo suflicient excuse was assigned f« the fail- 
 ure to appeal. 
 
 The commission disallowed the claim, {'Mr. Commissioner Gurney dis- 
 senting,) on the ground of the insufticiency of the reasons for failure to 
 appeal. 
 
 The Isabel; George Wigg, claimant. No. 269. 
 
 This vessel was ca[)tured on the 2,'id September, 1852, on a voyage 
 from Bayport, in Florida, to Havana; was taken into the port of Key 
 West, there libelled in the United States <listrict court before Judge 
 Marvin, and condemned as lawful prize. An appeal was taken, under the 
 then existing law, to the circuit court of the United States for the same 
 district; and this appeal was subsequently, uiuler the United States stat- 
 utes of 3d March, 18G3, (12 Stats, at L., I'M), § 7,) and of 3()th June, 1804, 
 (13 id., 311, § 13,) transferred by stii)ulation to the Supreme Court, in 
 which court the claimant having failed to tile the transcript from the 
 court below, pursuant to the rules of that court, the case was dismis8e<l, 
 on motion of the United States, without appearance on the i)art of the 
 claimant. The claimant alleged himself the sole owner of both vessel 
 and cargo ; and alleged that the port of Bayport, from which the vessel 
 sailed, was not blockaded at the time of the capture or of the entrance 
 or departure of the Isabel into and from that port. The fact of no block- 
 ade was sought to be established by the testimony of the master and 
 
AGKXT8 KKPORT. 
 
 llf) 
 
 crow of the, vossol, who tostillcd that tlu'y saw no blockiidiiij; vessels ))ii 
 tMitt'iiiijij or«h'p;irtiiiiH'. Tlio tiiiio of day or ui'^ht of tlieir eutruiice or dc 
 piirtiirc wiis not, shown. 
 
 The counsel of the United States relied on the olllciid reports of the 
 Secretary of the Xavy and aeconipanyinj;' «locnnients for the yeais ISdii 
 and l.Sd.J, and npon the decision of the <listrict court havin;; Jinlicial 
 knowledge of the current historical factH of the day, as sulhcriently 
 cstaUlishinH: the fact of hloctkade. Documentary proofs were lih'd on 
 the part of the United States K'oinfj to show the claimant, Wi;;?;. at 
 the time of the capture of the vessel actually en^'ajfcd in sliippiii};' mu- 
 nitions of Mar to the confederat*^ ycivernment ; and that both l)ef(U(i 
 and after the capture, he and the vessels which he owned or con- 
 trolled were for a lonj"- time lar<,H'ly enj;ay('d in the like employment. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was maintained: 1, that the Isabel 
 was lawfully captured in the acrtual course of a voya;;o in violation of 
 the blockade; 2, that, by the failure of the claimant to prosecute his 
 appeal to the Supreme Court, and procure an adjudication of that court 
 upon the merits of his case, he was debarred from a standiufjf befort' the 
 commission ; .'5, that, by his personal acts in aid of tlu^ enennes of the 
 United States in carryiufjf on their war ajrainst those States, the claim- 
 ant was debarred of my stundiufr as a Hritish subject before the (!om- 
 mission ; 4, that, by l.iose acts, he had constituted himself an enemy of 
 the United States, .so that his property upon the high seas was liable to 
 capture as enemy's property, irrespective of any ([uestion of blockade. 
 
 All these propositicms were controverted on the part of the claimant. 
 
 The commission unanimouslj' disallowed the claim. 
 
 The steamship Pearl ; Shand, Iligson & Co., claimants, No. 270. 
 
 The Pearl was captured in January, 180 J, by a United States cruiser, 
 in the Atlantic Ocean, between the Bahama Banks and Nassau, on a 
 voyage purporting^ to be from Queenstown to Nassau. She was taken 
 into the port of Key West, and there libelled as prize on the alleged 
 jiround that her actual destination was for one of the blockaded ports, 
 ]\Ir. Geo. Wig<? intervened as claimant in the district court, alle^iiij? 
 hiujselfthe sole and absolute owner of the vessel. The district court 
 adjudged restitution of the vessel and cargo. An appeal was taken by 
 the United States to the Sui)reme Court, and that court rever.sed the 
 decree of the district court, and adjudged condemnation of the vessel 
 and cargo. (See report of the case of the Pearl, oth Wallace, 571.) 
 
 The claimants here alleged that the vessel, though i)urchased by Wigg 
 in his own name, was actually purchased by him as agent for iNIessrs. 
 J. & T. Johnson, merchants of Liverpool, to whom she actually be- 
 i iged, though registered in the name of Wigg. That J. & T. Johnsort 
 h d, since the condemnation, assigned to the claimants, by way of mort- 
 gage, their claim upon the United States for the alleged wrongful cap- 
 ture and condemnation. No proofs were made by the claimants of the 
 
fh 'I 
 
 i< I 
 
 '-hi; 
 
 'it' 
 
 \' I'll 
 i' hi- 
 ! ■ !i 
 
 li 
 
 iflilKil 
 
 
 )■' 
 
 116 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 title of the Messrs. Johnson, nor of the assiguuieut of the chiim bj- 
 th<'in to the claiuiants. 
 The claim was unanimously disallowed. 
 
 The schooner D. F, Keelinpf ; Mary Hntchinson, claimant, No, 277". 
 
 Tliis vessel was seized in the port of New York, on the 0th October, 
 ]801, and libelled in the United Statesdistrict court for confiscation under 
 the statute of 13th Jnl}', 1801, (lli Stat, at L.,) as the property of an 
 inhabitant of the State of Louisiana, then in rebellion ajjainst the United 
 States. Theclaimant, Mary IJutchinson, interposed a claim to the vessel, 
 denying that she was an inhabitant of New Orleans, alleging herself a 
 native-born subjtHit of Great Britain, and only transiently present in New 
 Orleans upon a visit to relatives there residing. Tlie district court found 
 this allegation sustained by the proofs, and adjudged restitution of the 
 vessel, certifying probable cause of seiznre, and refusing costs or dam- 
 ages to the claimant. No appeal was taken from the decreed of the dis- 
 trict court. On the part of the clainmnt an atlidavit of one Leetch was 
 filed, excusing the omission to ai)peal on the ground that his own busi- 
 ness required him to retiun home inunediately to Mexico, (he having been 
 at the time the agent of i\Irs. Hutchinson,) and that Mrs. Hutchinson was 
 not able to attend to the api)eal in person, " by reason of age and infirm- 
 ity." The clainumt's memorial, verified by her own oatli, alleged that 
 she was born in 181 o, making her for.y-eight years old at the date of 
 tlie decree of restitution. She claimed here danniges by the detention of 
 the vessel, and costs incurred in defense of the suit, $18,003, besides 
 interest. 
 
 The proofs before the commission showed that the claimant em- 
 igrated with her husband to New Orleans about 1850; that her hus- 
 band died there in 1852, and that the claimant had ever since, up to the 
 ('are of the deposition, (February, 1873,) been pernmnently domiciled in 
 New Orleans. 
 
 On the i)art of the United States it was contended that the proof here 
 fully showed the liability of the vessel to condemnation before the dis- 
 trict court; that such condenuiation was there defeated by false alle^-a- 
 tions aiul proofs ; that, on the merits, the clainmnt was not entitled to 
 damages ; and that no sufficient reason was shown for her failure to 
 appeal from the decree of the district court. 
 
 The commission unanimously disallowed the claim. 
 
 The schooners Albion, Alert, La CrioUa, Mary Stewart, Agnes, Fanny, 
 Anne Sophia, Defiance, Nelly, Agnes, J. C. Eoker, Florida, Anna, 
 Wanderer, Mabei, Julia, Swift, Pride, Cliance, Arctic, Brilliant, John 
 W., Industry, Time ; the sloops Lida and Julia, and the steamer Liz- 
 zie ; Sanders & Sons, claimants, No. 281. 
 
 Messrs. Sanders & Sons, merchants of Nassau, filed their memorial 
 claiming damages, in all $U2,G43, besides interest, for the alleged wrong- 
 ful capture and coudemuation of the tweuty-seveu vessels above-named. 
 
agent's report. 
 
 117 
 
 Thoir meinoriiil contaiiieil simply a general avermont that tlieir vohsoIs 
 woro l.iwfiiUy ensajjed in trade " with certain [)orts of the Uiiitetl States 
 wliicli were liehl open by tlie Government of th(? United States to for- 
 ci,<^'n commerce, and also with certain ports of Great Britain and other 
 niUions." That they were with their car^iT^oes " nnhuvfnlly and wrotiin- 
 fnlly captured, in violatioji of the law of nations," by cruisers of the Uni- 
 ted States, and condemned and sold, A schedule of the dilfv^'rent vessels, 
 with copies of the respective registers, was file<l with the memorial. No 
 other proofs were tiled for the claimants, and the claim was unani- 
 mouslv disallowed. 
 
 The schooner Echo ; Peter A. Spearwater, claimant, Xo. 284. 
 
 The E(!ho w is captured by a United Stat<vs vessel of war on the 
 31st of May, 18(>."5, on a voya^je from .^fatamoras to New York; was 
 taken into the port of Key West ; there libelled in th(Mlistrict (!onrt ; 
 by which coiirt judoinent of restitution was awarded, certifyinj>' proba- 
 ble cause of capture, and refn si n*>' costs or daruiJ'^es to the (daimants. 
 No appeal was taken and no reason was assi<»iie(l for the failure to aj)- 
 peal. In the testimony before the jirize court the mate of the vessel 
 testified that the carj^o was taken on board at the mouth of the Kio 
 Grande, and was purchased by the claimant himself in Brownsville, 
 Texas, a town of the Confederate States; that the Echo lay oil' the 
 mouth of the Kio G- mde for about four months, from January till May, 
 ISO;}; that, during most of that time, the claimant, the owner and 
 master of the vessel, was in Brownsville and there purchased the cot- 
 ton in question. The claimant himself, in his dei)()sition denied these 
 statements of his mate; and the district Jud^'e deemed, the evidence 
 insuilicient to justify condemnation, but suilicient to establish proba- 
 ble cause. 
 
 The commission unanimously tlisallowed the claim. 
 
 The bark S[)ringbok ; John Eiley, manager, <S:c., No. 412, claimant 
 for vessel ; S. Isaac Cam[)bell & Co. and Tliomas Stirling Bcgbie, No. 
 310, clainuints for cargo. 
 
 This vessel was captured by n United States cruiser, on the .'hi Feb- 
 ruary, 18(53, on the Atlantic Ocean, about one hundred and tifty miles 
 east of Nassau, New Providence ; was taken into the port of New 
 York, and there libelled in the district court. That court rendered a 
 decree of condemnation of both vessel and cargo. (See the report of 
 the case, Blaich ford's Prize Cases, |)p. 434 to 4(J3.) The claimants ap- 
 pealed to the Supreme Court, which altirmed the Judgment of condeni- 
 nation of the district court as to the cargo, but reversed it as to the 
 vessel, adjudging restitution of the vessel, but without costs or <lam- 
 ages to the claimants, (o Wall, 1.) 
 
 The claimant John Riley, No. 442, claimed as manager of the London 
 A I Insurance Association, the A 1 Gua'antee Insurance Association, 
 
 I 
 
 if 
 
 ^ 
 
 i 
 
'I. i:: 
 
 i i 
 
 li 
 
 ! I 
 
 118 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 and tlie Colouial A 1 Insurance Association, insurers of the vessel, and 
 who had, on abandonment by the owners, paid as for a total loss. He 
 claimed an award for£4,G15, besides interest, damages for the detention 
 ot the vessel, loss of profits, and costs and expenses in the i)rize-courts 
 
 The claimants S. Isaac Campbell & Co., and Begbie, claimed £(i8,378, 
 the alleged value of the condemned cargo, and costs and expenses in the 
 ])rize courts. The facts of the caseas appearing before the prize courts 
 are sufficiently set forth in the reports of the respective courts above 
 cited. 
 
 In addition to the proofs before the prize courts the claimants gave 
 evidence before the commission tending to show that tiie actual and 
 ultimate destination of the cargo was Nassau, and that it was iuteuded 
 to be there sold in open market by the agent of the owners. 
 
 This evidence consisted of the testimony of the agent of the claimants 
 at Nassau to that ettect, certain letters from the claimants to said agent 
 proved by him, and general proofs showing that there was at Nassau 
 a market for the various kinds of merchandise constituting the cargo of 
 tiie vessel. 
 
 Neither of the claimants for the cargo placed himself upon the stand 
 to testify as to the actual destination or the intent of the owners in 
 relation to it. The claimant Begbie was examined as a witness in behalf 
 of Mr. Eiley, the claimant in No. 442 ; and, on his examination-in-chief, 
 testified merely that the cargo of tlie Springbok was to be discharged 
 at Nassau; that there was no agreement for the continuance of the voy- 
 age, or for the employme C or engagement of the vessel after her 
 arrival at Nassau; and that the captain of the vessel knew nothing of 
 the ownership of the cargo. On cross-examination he declined to 
 answer as to whether he was, in the years 1802 or 1803, engaged in block- 
 ade-running speculations, and whether he was, at the time of her cap- 
 ture, the owner of the Gertrude or her cargo, (this being the vessel 
 referred to in the report of the case in the Supreme Court, and the 
 l)roofs upon the condemnation of which were invoked in the case of 
 the Springbok.) 
 
 On the part of the United States evidence was given showing both the 
 firm of S. Isaac Campbell & Co. and Begbie actively and largely engaged 
 in blockade-running ventures, ar^d in supplying by contract the confed- 
 erate government with iiiilitary supples. These proofs included origiiuil 
 contracts and letters between the claimants S. Isaac Campbell & Co. 
 and the confederate secretary of war, and other oflicials, showing con- 
 tracts by that firm, running through the years 1802 and 1803, for cannon, 
 ritles, swords, accoutrements, gunpowder, shells, clothing, &c., in 
 large quantities, and delivery of the same to the confederate government 
 untler such contracts to the amount of several bundled thousand pounds. 
 Also evidence showing the claimant Begbie a contractor with the con- 
 federate governnjent for the establishment of lines of fast steamers, to 
 run itj the service of that government between the blockaded ports of 
 the Confederate States and ports in the West Indies. 
 
AGENT S REPORT. 
 
 119 
 
 On tlie part of the cliumants it was contendod that the proofs in tlio 
 ])iize court failed to sustain tije conclusions of the district court, that 
 tlie vessel " was Ivuowingly hi<len in wliqle or in i)art with articles (!on- 
 traband of war, with intent to deliver such j.rticles to the aid and use of 
 the enemy ;" that the true destination of the shi[) and car}»o was not Nas- 
 sau, a neutral i)ort, and for trade and commerce, but some port lawfully 
 blockaded by the forces of the United States, and with intent to violate 
 such blockade ; and, further, that the pai)ers of the vessel were simu- 
 lated ar.d false. That they also failed to sustain the conclusions of the 
 Sni)renie Court, " that the cargo was originally shi[»ped with an intent 
 to violate the blockade; that the owners of the cargo intended that it 
 should be trans-shipped at Nassau into some vessel uiore likely to succeed 
 in reaching" safely a bl')ckaded port than the Si»ringbok ; that the voy- 
 age from London to the blockaded port was, as to cargo, both in law 
 and in the intentof the parties, one voyage, and that the liability to con- 
 demnation, if cai)tured during any part of that voy.;ge, attached to the 
 cargo from the time of sailing.'' 
 
 The counsel for the claimants further contended that the proofs filed 
 for the first time before this commission conclusively rebutted these 
 conclusions of each of the prize courts, and established the ultimate 
 destination of both ship and cargo to be Nassau, the cargo to be there 
 sold in open market. 
 
 The counsel called attention to an error in the opinion of the Supreme 
 Court in stating sixteen dozen swords and ten dozen ritle-bayonets as 
 forming" part of the cargo of the Springbok, when in fact the proofs 
 showed the vessel to have carried only one sample-case containiiig one 
 dozen cavalry-swords and one dozen ritle-bayonets; and to the fact 
 that, on the sale of the cargo, the entire proceeds of the swords and 
 bayonets, and of the array and navy buttons, were only $270 out of the 
 gross proceeds of the entire cargo of nearly $250,000; and that, includ- 
 ing the army blankets, saltpetre, and all that portion of the cargo which 
 could be regarded for any purpose as qurtsl contraband, the i)r()ceeds of 
 such alleged contraband goods were less than one per cent, of the pro- 
 ceeds of the entire cargo. He urged that the Judgnieut of the Supreme 
 Court sustained "extreme pretensions of belligerent right to subjugate 
 neutral commerce to its necessities," which ought not to be sustained by 
 this international tribunal ; that, to sustain the doctrine of liability to 
 capture on the theory of "continuous voyage," it must appear that the 
 cargo was intended as a part of the original and planned adventure to 
 be carried from the neutral port to the eiiemy's port ; that the extrenie 
 doctrine in this regard had been slated by the Sn[)reme Court in the 
 case of the Bermuda, (3 Wallace, 515,) as follows: 
 
 A voynge from a nenfrnl lo a Iclli^cnsnt port is one iuid tin- huiiio V(i.vm!j;o, wliethcr 
 tlio di'stiiiatioii bo ulterior o'- direct, iiiiil whether with or wilhoiu. the interpo.sitioii oi" 
 one or more iiiterm»!<liate ports, and whetlu^r to be pertormcd iiy one ve.sMel or Hevcral 
 (;iiij)loyed iu the same trausaetiou and iu the accomplishuient of the same purpose. 
 
 
 4 [i 
 
 
120 
 
 A]MKUICAN-RRITISTI CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 That tlie measnro of tliiu doctrine, as applied by the Supreme Court 
 to the ease of the Bermuda, was as follows: 
 
 What has already oooti adduced of Iho cvidenco satisfies us completuly that tlio 
 orifiiiiiil (k'stination of the 15t!niin(la was to a liloclcaded port; or, if oth(!r\vis(\ to an 
 iiitiTiiifdiuto port, witli liitriit to send forward the caryo by trans-sliiprncnt into a vessel 
 provided for the coiiii)letioii of the voyage. 
 
 That, with the doctrine of continuous voyajje as thus limited and 
 defined, nothing in the <!ase of the Sprinobok involves any neeessaiy 
 controversy; but that this doctrine ()uj,Mit not to be extended so as to 
 make S'uilty a trade between neutral ])orts to v.-hicU the intercepted 
 voya,i;e was actually and really confined, by surmise, conjecture, or moral 
 evidence not of a lurther carriaj^e and further carrier, but only of a 
 proliability that such supplementary further «^arriafi,e an<l some supple- 
 mentary further carrier may or must have been included in the orioinal 
 scheme of the commercial adventure. Tiiat such a tiction of continuous 
 voyage for the case of all tnide between neutral ports, which hus its 
 stimulus from the state of war, made the belli jjerent prize court master 
 of neutral connnerce, and in fact established a paper blockade of the 
 neutral [nn'ts in (juestion, and left their commerce at the mercy of the 
 belligerent. That the whole history of prize Jurisdiction on the doctrine 
 of continuous voyage shows that tlr ) province of probable reasoning has 
 been confined to the (piestion of intent, while the corpus delicti. — the 
 voyage fo the enemy port — must be proved with the stime deliniteness 
 of vehicle, port, and process of execution as is confessedly essential 
 when the voyage is direct and simjile. 
 
 That the original cai>ture of the Springbok was wholly unjustifiable; 
 that the visitation and search disclosed nothing which rendered her voy- 
 age amenable to further moft'station ; that there was nothing in the ves- 
 sel, her cargo, or her i)apers, her position, or the circumstances of her 
 capture, justifying the cruiser in sending the vessel into port for 
 libel, on the speculation that it might be that the cargo was to go for- 
 ward, and, if so, that fact perhaps might be provable; that it was a 
 marked case ot si)eculative sei/Aire and detention, not upon imlications 
 which the visit and search at sea disclosed, but for the purpose of a 
 visitation and search in the prize courts for independent, extraneous, 
 and argumentative grounds of suspicion. 
 
 That the trial in the piize court violated the essential principles of 
 the i)rize jurisdiction as establislied between belligerents and neutrals, 
 and in which the latter find the limits of their exposure and submission. 
 That the rule of the prize courts that condemnation could only be justi- 
 fied upon the proof furnished by the vessel itself, her papers, and cargo, 
 and the depositions of those on board, is not a mere matter of practice 
 or form, but is of the very essence of the administration of prize law. 
 That, accordingly, the invo(!ation by the eai)tors of the papers from the 
 cases of the (Jertrude and Stephen Hart as i)artof the primary i)ioofs on 
 which to coiidemn the Springbok and her cargo, was unprecedented, ac- 
 
AGENT S REPO IT. 
 
 121 
 
 knowlo(1j>e(l Iw the Snproine Court to ho, ivro^nhn and not in acconi- 
 iiii<!e witli rhe rules of pioceodiiiy' in prize, nnd was not a ineie irregu- 
 larity in i'orm but was subversive of the principles of prijce jurisdiction. 
 
 That the j)assin<; of condemnation without s'^'i'L"' the claimants an 
 oi)p()rtnnity for further ])roof, was a manifest iiijusti(x^ ; and that the 
 absolute (condemnation without su(!h opportunity for further proofs was 
 contrary to the rightful system of prize juvisdi(!tion. 
 
 Tliat the jn-esence of the trivial amount of contraband (as held by the 
 prize (!ourt) (jonld not be regarded either as evidence of its own destina- 
 tion or of that of its accompanying innocent cargo toan ulterior market, 
 nor as ground for coiulemiuition indepemleut of tiie (piestiou of intended 
 breach of blockade ; citing ou this poiut Dr. Gessuer's Droit ties Nciitres 
 nur Mer, p. 122, as follows : 
 
 It is ^vroug to seize contriiband goods in a nonfral veasol wlien thoy aro in siicli 
 siiiiill (inantities that tliuir inort'cnsive cliavacter i,s tliL'ri;by cstaltlisluHl. Tiic bona Jidt^ 
 is a ([iicstion to bo (Ictorniinod by all the circumstances of tlio case, among which tho 
 quantity is a very material ingredient. 
 
 In addition to the above, the counsel for the claimant cited the follow- 
 ing : 
 
 Tho letter of Sir Wra. Scott and Sir John Xicholl to Mr. Jay, 3 
 Phillimore, 551 ; Story on Prize Courts, (by Tratt,) pp. 3 to 10, 17, 18, 24 
 to 20; Wheaton's Elements, part 4, c. 2, § 15; Trumbull's Iteminiscences 
 of his own Times, 193; the decision of the Geneva Tribunal upon the 
 case of the Florida, accpiitted in the vice-admiralty court at Nassau on 
 the charge of violation of the neutrality act of Great Britain ; The Polly, 
 2 Rob., 301 ; The Maria, 5 hJ., 035 ; The William, hi., 385 ; The Thoniyris, 
 Edwards's Reps., 17 ; 3 Phillimore, 358 ; 5 Rob., 334. 
 
 On the part of the claimants of the vessel it was contended, in addi- 
 tion to the positions above st.ted, that it was found by the Supreme 
 Court that her papers were regular and her voyage a bona fide one 
 between London and Nassau; that the papers were all genuine, and 
 there was no concealment of any of them, and no spoliation ; that the 
 owners were neutrals, appeared to liav^e no interest in the cargo, and 
 could have had no knowledge of its alleged unlawful destination ; that 
 these conclusions of the Supreme Court ni)ou the evidence before it 
 were strengthened and completely sustained by the additional testimony 
 taken before the commission ; that the grouiuls on which the Supreme 
 Court denied costs and damages to the (claimants of the vessel, to wit» 
 misrepresentation by the master on his examination as to his lack of 
 kimwledge of the grounds on which the captiire was made, and the fact 
 that he had signed bills of lading which did not state truly and fully 
 the nature of the goods contained in the bales and cases mentioned in 
 them, were unsustaiiied as matters of fact by the evidence, and, even 
 if sustained, were in themselves not of tlje least significance, and did 
 not and could not affect the interests or issues involved in the capture? 
 that, 80 far as the vessel and her owners were concerned, her voy;ige was 
 
 •is 
 
 t\ 
 
 m 
 
 > 
 
 I'U1 
 
 
 
 • '\ 
 
 j 
 
'■I 
 I! 
 
 
 !j 
 
 ■it 
 ft 1 
 
 122 
 
 AMKRICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 lionest, her papers fair, aiid the {rood faith of the charter-i)arty absolute 
 and unimpeachable, and the clarations and conduct of her captain 
 not so obnoxious to just writicisin as to justify the infliction of punish- 
 ment upon the innocent owners. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was maintained that the conclu- 
 sions arrived at by the Supreme Court as above stated, and upon which 
 the decree of that court condemning the cargo was based, were fully sus- 
 tained by the evidence before the prize court. That tlie claimants of 
 the cargo had, by the judgmeui; of the Supreme Court, full notice of the 
 ground" on which the cargo was condemned, those grounds relating 
 principally to their own previous conduct in furnishing military sup- 
 plies to the confederate government and in running the blockade, and 
 to the presumption raised by the circumstances of the case as to their 
 own design and incention in regard to the destination of the cargo. 
 That, notwithstanding this notice, they had failed to avail themselves of 
 the opportunity attbrded them before the commission to testify as to the 
 facts and conclusions thus found by the Supreme Court ; and that in 
 the case of Mr. Begbie, when placed upon the stand involuntarily, he 
 had refused to answer concerning these very uiatters. That this failure 
 and refusal to testify on the part of the claimants was to be taken as in 
 etfect an admission of the correctness of the conclusions of the court. 
 
 That by the evidence adduced before the commission the fact was fully 
 established that all these claimants of the cargo were extensively engaged 
 in running the blockade, and also in furnishing military supplies to the 
 enemy. That the facts thus proved went strongly to confirm the con- 
 clusions of the court that the cargo Avas destined and intended for 
 trans-shipment to and delivery in the Confederate States, and not for a 
 market at Nassau. That they also established that these claimants legally 
 and morally were not neutrals, but enemies of the United States actually 
 engaged in the prosecution of the war against those States ; and that, as 
 such, their property on the high seas was liable to capture without 
 legard to the question of blockade. That the question of national 
 character in such case was always a question of the individual national 
 character of the owner, and not of his national character as established 
 by paramount allegiance, citing the Anna Catherina, 4 Rob., 119 ; the 
 Vigilantia, 1 id., 1 ; the Vriendschap, 4 id., 16G, and the authorities cited in 
 3 Phillimore, G05, GOG. That these proofs also precluded the claimanits 
 from a standing before this coiniuission as neutral British subjects. 
 That as to the vessel, the capture and condemnation of the cargo being 
 lawful, the seizure of the vessel and taking her into port wa- also law- 
 ful as the sole means of reaching the cargo which was lawful prize, and 
 that in such case the vessel was not entitled to costs or damages. 
 
 The commission unanimously disallowed the claiuj for the cargo in 
 Nc. 31G. In the claim for the vessel. No. 442, they unanimously awarded 
 to the claiuiant the sum of $5,()G5. I am advised that this award was 
 made in respect of the detention of the vessel from the date of the 
 
AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 123 
 
 «locree of the district court to the date of her discharge under the decree 
 of the Supreme Court, the latter decree having- established that the 
 vessel should have been discharged by the decree of the district court. 
 
 The steamship M. S. Perry, alias Salvor; John McLennan, claimant, 
 No. 370. 
 
 Tliis vessel, then known as the Salvor, was owned at the breaking out 
 of the rebellion by James McKay, a citizen of Florida. In September, 
 18()1, McKay took her to Havana, and there went through the form' of 
 a sale of the vessel to McLenuan, the present claimant, who caused her 
 to be registered in his name at the British consulate at Havana, and 
 re-christened her the M. S. Perry. A bill of sale was given by McKay 
 to McLenuan, specifying the nominal consideration of $;i2,00(). On the 
 13th October, 1801, she sailed from Havana with the ostensible destina- 
 tion of Nassau, but with written instructions to go to the main-land of 
 Florida and there land Donald MitKay, a son of the former owner, who 
 went as a passenger, together th several negro slaves of the former 
 owner, McKay. McKay, senior, himself sailed with her for Nassau? 
 holding a power of attorney fiom McLennan, authorizing him to collect 
 the freight at Nassau, 
 
 She was captured on the night of the loth October, at a point between 
 the Dry Tortugasand the coast of Florida, being headed for the western 
 coast of the peninsula of Florida, and in a position quite wide of the 
 jiroper course to Nassau, and separated from that port by the whole 
 width of the peninsula of Florida and the waters intervening between 
 that peninsula and the Bahamas. She was taken into the port of Phila- 
 delphia, there libelled in the district court, condemned, and sold. No 
 appeal was taken from the judgment of the prize court; but the com- 
 mission held, as has been already stated, the reasons assigned for the 
 failure to appeal sufficient. The proofs taken before the prize court 
 were not put in evidence before the commission. 
 
 From the testimony takeu before the commission, it appeared that 
 McLennan was a merchant's clerk in Havana, not engaged in sliipping, 
 and owning no interest in any other ves-sel than the M. S. Perry. When 
 examined himself as a witness, McLennan refused to say whether he 
 possessed any property or money to enable him to make such a purchase; 
 but it appeared that he gave McKay his promissory notes for the amount 
 of the purchase-money at six, twelve, and eighteen months, without any 
 security for their payment by mortgage on the vessel or otherwise. It 
 did not appear that anything had ever been paid on the notes ; and the 
 claimant, when asked on cross-examination whether they had ever been 
 paid, declined to answer. McKay remained in the sole actual nianage- 
 nient of the vessel after the sale, and emi)loyed the captain, the chief 
 engineer, and the ship broker who obtained her freight. McKay also 
 held a power of attorney from McLennan to recover and receive what- 
 ever iudemuity or compensation should bo awarded by the commission 
 
 P} 
 
 •''T./^' 
 
 
 
 
 'i^'; 
 
 
 "1 
 1 >' 
 
nrr- 
 
 124 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 lil' 
 
 I i I 
 
 ii 
 
 \ I 
 
 fi< 
 
 I-' 
 
 
 )i^ i!-^ 
 
 in the promises; lie verified the memorial filed by the claiimint; and he 
 alone appeared to have procured the attendance of witnesses, and to 
 have prosecuted the case before the commission. 
 
 A considerable portion of the car{>o of the i\r. S. Terry, upon her 
 capture, consisted of arms and ammunition, of the ownership of which 
 no proof was made, and lor which uo claim was prosecuted before the 
 commission. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was maintained that these facts 
 clearly indicated the pretended sale by McKay to McLennan to be color- 
 able merely, and that upon tiiem the claimant had shown no title to 
 recover ; that the direction to the vessel to land young McJvay and the 
 nej»ro slaves on the coast of Florida was an attempt to violate the 
 blockade, aTid Justified the capture; that the omission of the claimant 
 to produce the testimony before the prize court left the judgment of 
 that court to be presumed fully sustained by the evidence, and that in 
 the absence of that evidence the commission could not declare the judg- 
 ment erroneous. 
 
 The commission unanimously disallowed the claim. 
 
 The steamship Granite City ; Edward Pembroke, claimant, Xo. 377. 
 
 Tills vessel was captured on the 22d March, 181J;>, on a voyage from 
 Nassau, at which port she had cleared nominally for Saint John's, New 
 Brunswick. She had shortly before taken a cargo of merchandise from 
 Nassau, through the blockade, to Wilmington, N. C, and succeeded in 
 getting through safely, though fired at by the blockaders, and had also 
 succeeded in running out a cargo of cotton through the blockade. In 
 his deposition inpreimratorio^hav master, after repeated refusals to state 
 to what port the vessel was actually bound at the time of her capture, 
 finally voluntarily stated, at the end of his dei)Ositiou, " that he was 
 bound to run the blockade into some confederate port wherever he could 
 get in ; and if he could not get in, to go elsewhere." The proof was un- 
 questioned that she was captured in the prosecution of a voyage de- 
 signed to violate the blockade. During the pursuit by the captors, and 
 immediately before the capture, a package of papers, of whose contents 
 the captain professed himself ignorant, was burned by his orders. 
 
 She was libelled in the United States district court for the southern 
 district of New York, and a decree of condemnation was rendere«l by that 
 court. (See report of the case, Blatchford's Prize Cases, 355-357.) Pend- 
 ing the proceedings in the district conrt, and before the decree of con- 
 demnation, the vessel was taken for the use of the United States at an 
 appraised value, under the United States statute of March 3, 18G3. (12 
 Stat, at L., 759.' The cargo was sold under the decree. The claimaTit 
 alleged himself the owner of the vessel and cargo, and claimed damages, 
 $402,000, besides interest. No appeal was taken from the decree of the 
 district court. The claimant filed, under the order of the commission, 
 a statement of the reasons for his failure to appeal, alleging in ettecfc 
 
AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 125 
 
 tliiit tlio (locreeofcoiidcinniitiou was by default, tlio claimant not liavin};^ 
 ai)i)i'ared in the prize court, and that, tlio vessel having been taken by the 
 United States, he had no funds, or means of securing funds, wheio- 
 with to appeal. 
 
 The case was decided without a specific decision upon the sufticiency 
 of these reasons. 
 
 On the |)art of the claimant it was contended that the capture was 
 illegal, in that the vessel had received no warninjj, and that shy w;t.s 
 captured on the hijjh seas, an<l not in the act of violatinjj the blockade 
 by crossing that part of tlie sea which had been conquered by the block- 
 ading power. That the declarations of the nuister, as to the object and 
 intent of the voyage, did not constitute the olfence of violating the 
 blockade, nor authorize the capture. That the fact of the former run- 
 ning of the blockade was not to be taken as proof of the illicit charac- 
 ter of the voyage in the course of which she was cai)tured. That the 
 spoliation of papers shown did not constitute suHicient ground of con- 
 denimition, and generally thac the grounds of condemnation assigned 
 by the court were insuflicient under well-settled princii)les of interna- 
 tional law, and without precedent in maritime jurisprudence. That the 
 prosecution of an appeal from the decision of the prize court was not 
 necessary to lay the foundation for reclamation before the commission. 
 That the ai)propriation of the vessel to the use of the United States 
 before conden)nation Mas an unlawful act, and of itself gave suHicient 
 ground for reclamation. That that act deprived the prize court of 
 jurisdiction, tho proceeding being <h re»j,andthe subject of the litigation, 
 therefore, must necessarily be before the court, in order to sustain their 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 The counsel for the claimants cited the case of the bark Jones, before 
 the commission under the convention of 18r».'>, between the United 
 States and Great Britain ; also Kane's notes of decisions by the board 
 of commissioners under the convention with France, of July 4, 1831 ; 
 The Euphrates, 1 Gall., 451; The Diana, 2 i<L,d3; Smart ns'. Wolfe, 3 
 T. K., 329; The Eole, C Rob., 223; Jennings vs. Carson, 4 Cranch, 23; 
 IJalleck's Int. Law, i)p. 7(33, 704, §§ 10, 17 ; The Pizarro, 2 Wheat., 227 ; 
 Bernardi vs. Motteaux, Doug., i581 ; The Wren, Wall; Fitzsimmons 
 vs. The Newport Ins. Co., 4 Cranch, 185 ; Calhoun r,s'. The Ins. Co. of 
 Pa., 1 Binney, 293; The Betsey, 1 Rob., 280; The Vrow Judith, id, 
 128 ; The Columbia, tV7., 130 : The Vrow Joanna, 2 id., 91 ; The Neptunus, 
 id, 92 ; The Spiece and Irene, 5 id., 70 ; The Shepherdess, id., 235 ; The 
 Apollo, id, 250 ; Vattel, book 3, § 117. 
 
 The commission unanimously, and without hearing any argument for 
 the United States, disallowed the claim. 
 
 The bark Empress ; John Loft, mortgagee, claimant, No. 387. 
 This vessel was captured off the mouth of the Mississippi River, in 
 November, 1801, sent into the port of New York, and there libelled for 
 
 
 JSI 
 
 
 
 l.-'f 
 
 ■\'i}\ 
 
126 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 i ! 
 
 
 
 1%} 
 
 
 n«l judication as prize in tlio (listiict court. Tliodistrict court adjndficd 
 condeiunation of vessel an«l carjjfo, (Blatclitbrd's Prizes Cases, l?').) Au 
 appeal was taken to tlie circuit court of the United States for the 
 same district, under the practice then existing-, which court reversed the 
 judgment of the district court and awarded restitution, {id., 05!),) but 
 without costs or damages to the claimants. Pending the proceedings 
 in the [M-ize court the vessel was sold ami the proceeds, less the costs 
 taxed against the sauie, were paid into the hinds of the proctors of the 
 claimants in tlie prize court, Pearson and others, the owners of the ves- 
 sel. 
 
 The memorial alleged that this money w*ns attached in the hands of 
 the juoctors by (creditors of Pearson, and that Pearson's interest in the 
 same was appropriate<i to the payment of the debts due from him to the 
 attaching creditors. The claimant, hoft, alleged himself the holder of 
 a mortgage given by the owner, Pearson, to him to secure the sum of 
 JC1,()0() and iriterest, which mortgage was wholly due and unpaid. It al- 
 leged thitL tne claimant had never received any notic(! of the capture of 
 the bark, except as he leariuul the fact from the owners some time after 
 the capture, and that ho was then informed by the owners that tiiey 
 were taking the necessary and proper steps in the law courts for the 
 purpose of protecting their interests. 
 
 The memorial also alleged that the bark, at the time of her capture, 
 was worth the sum of £1,()(K), and that it became largely depreciated in 
 value by being suffered to remain without repairs, aiul without proper 
 care being taken of it during the time it was detained prior to the sale. 
 The claimant claimed the anjount of his mortgage, £1,000 and interest. 
 
 His counsel contended that the decree of the circuit court having or- 
 dered the restitution of the vessel to the claimants free of all costs and 
 charges, it was plain that that decree had not been executed, over 
 $:i,0{)0 having been retained from the proceeds as costs and charges, and 
 the proofs failing to show that the remainder of the proceeds even were 
 ever paid over in any maniu?r under the decree of the court. 
 
 On the part of the United States, it was contended that from the me- 
 morial itself it appeared that the proceeds of the vessel were regularly 
 paid over to the proctors of the owners, the only claimants appearing 
 in the prize court, excepting only coats allowed by the court as claim- 
 ants' costs out of t'le fund. That it further appeared from the memo- 
 rial that these funds thus paid over to the proctors were appropriated by 
 vegularjudicial process to the payment of claims of attaching creditors 
 of the owners. That, if the claimant, Loft, as mortgagee, had a valid 
 lien upon the vessel, that lien could have been followed against the pro- 
 ceeds dne, had he seen fit to take the necessary steps for that purpose; 
 and that behaving failed to do so, his lien had been lost by his own neg- 
 ligence. That, as to the sum withheld for costs, nothing appeared to 
 show that that sum was excessive in amount, or was improperly with, 
 held; and that if such had been the case, the remedy of the claimant 
 
 . p m 
 
AGENTS RKPORT. 
 
 127 
 
 or of liiM iiiort;jiij?or, who reiJivscnttMl liia intorosts lu'fore tlio pri/o courf, 
 WHS aiijplt! belong tlio courts tlu'insi'lves. That the wlioh' case showed 
 110 ^ro;iii«l ofititeriiatioiiiil rechiinatioii on behalf of this ehihiiaiit. 
 The coiuiiiissioii nuanimoiisly disallowinl the chiiiii. 
 
 The steaMishii>s Sniibeain, Ea^le, (Treyhonnd, Lilian, Lacy, Emma. 
 Jlenry; also, tlie t<teainers Uanshee, Tristram Hhandy ; Henry Lafone 
 and .lohn T. Lawrence, No. 3Sl), claimants ior the six lirst named, and 
 John T. Lawrence, No, 4;51, claimant for the two latter. 
 
 These vessels were (japtnred at <lifferent times in lS(}ii, ISO?,, and Lsr)4, 
 by war vessels of the I Tnited States, and dnly condemned in the prize 
 courts of orif^imd jurisdiction. No question was nmd(^ but that they 
 were all at tiie time of capture engaged in voyai^cs intended for viola- 
 tion of the blockade. No appeals were taken from the prize courts of 
 orij^inal Jurisdiction before which they were respectively condemned. 
 Tlie claimants filed their reascns for failure to appeal, in wliiirh they al- 
 leged poverty and destitution of means to defray the expense of appeal, 
 ignorance of the circumstances of the capture, imprisonment of the mas- 
 ters and crews, and previous adverse decisions by the Supreme Court in 
 like cases, as the excuses for non-appeal. 
 
 No specific ruling w^as made by the commission on the sufficiency 
 of these reasons, but the cases were submitted on their nunits, the only 
 claim on the part of the claimants being that they were resi)e(!tively 
 entitled to formal notice and warning by a blockading vessel before they 
 could be subjected to capture. This question was not argued, and the 
 commission unanimously disallowed the claims. 
 
 The brig Geziena Heligonda ; Walter Easton, trustee, claimant, No. 
 390. 
 
 This was a Dutch vessel, sailing under charter-party to the firm of 
 Galbraith, liedgate & Co., of Glasgow and Matamoras, for a voyage 
 from Liverpool to Matamoras and back. She was captured on the 4th 
 l)ecend>er, 1804, on the outward voyage, within the blocka<K(l waters of 
 the coast of Texas, and oft" th(^ port of Brazos Santiago, situated soujc 
 ten to fifteen miles north of the mouth of the liio Grande ; was taken 
 into the port of New Orleans and there libelled, and in that court a 
 decree of condemnation was rendered on the 2d February, 1805. The 
 claimant ajiplied for a rehearing in the district court, which was granted, 
 and further proof allowed. Jausen, the Dutch master of the brig, was 
 then reexamined in his own language, with the aid of an interpreter j 
 and on the 25th March, 1805, the iudginent of condemnation before 
 rendered was annulled, and judgment of restitution awarded, certifying 
 reasonable cause of seizure, and refusing costs and damages to claimant. 
 From this decree both parties appealed. Captain Janaen representing 
 the owners of both vessel and cargo. The Supreme Court, on the hearing, 
 and without any written opinion, unanimously attirined the decree in all 
 respects. 
 
I'!' ,!;Prn 
 
 128 
 
 AMKKICAN-mUTISII CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 TIm' ('liiii)j licrc wijs lnoiiylit by Kuston as tni.stc*^ imdcr a trust ilccil 
 i'ov the ItciK'lit. «)t'<!i'(Mlitor.s ('X«'(tiit('il l>,v IIk^ linn of (lallMnitli, ll.Mlyiiti! 
 cS: Co., till' alU'};'<'<l owium's of tlui car;;(). Samuel J. Iii'(l;j;at(', one of the 
 inciiilx'rs of tliiM (Inn, aii«l who was also tlti^ (iliiiiniint in (%ihi^ No. 4L'll, 
 li«'r«.'inl)('ton' reported, and one of the heiielieiiiries in No. l.')l), iieri'after 
 reported under the head of th«^ I'eterhotl", appeared to be a eiti/enof the 
 United Htatcs. The vessel, when llnst schmi, was not oidy within the 
 bloeUa(h'd waters of Texas, biit was ai)parently seekinjif to etleet an en- 
 trance into the inlet of Ursi/os .Santiajjo. Kioni the proofs taken in the 
 l»rize court, how(!ver, it was evident that there was no intention to vio- 
 hite the blockade, and that Captain .J;ins(Mi was seekinj? to citlect this 
 entrance under the mistaken impression that it was the mouth of tlu^ 
 Jiio (Irande. The car^o of tlu^ vessel, thon;jjh containinj; notliin;;' stri(;tly 
 contraband of war, was in large part tlttecl and ai)i)arently desiyneil 
 for the confeilerate markets. 
 
 On tho part of the United States it was contended thnt the circum- 
 stances under which the vessel was ciiprured sntlitiiently justitled the 
 capture as one of " probable cause," and tliat no <;round existed for over- 
 rulinji' or ([uestioning" the judgment of the United States courts upon 
 the case. 
 
 On the part of the claimant it was insisted that a proper and reason- 
 able examination of the books and papers of the vessel, together with 
 the explaiKition of lier position given by her ol1i(!ers, ought to have 
 fully satistied tho captors of her innocent intent, and to have prevented 
 her detention and tidving into port for libel. 
 
 The commission unanimously disallowed the claim. 
 
 'i 
 
 :.|-!'! 
 
 iiiii 
 
 
 i. .i-«. 1 
 
 The steamship Adela; A.rtliur Bower Forwood and .Tames Dorrington, 
 No. 3!)2, claimants for the vessel; Arthur Bower Forwood and Will- 
 iam Bower Forwood, No. 3!)3, claimants for cargo. 
 
 This vessel was captured on the 7th July, 18(»2, near the island of 
 Abaco, one of the Bahama Islands, and a possession of Her Britannic 
 Majesty, in a voyage from Liverpool ostensibly to Nassau. She was 
 taken into the port of Key "West, and there libelled in the district court, 
 and a decive of condemnation of both vessel and cargo was there ren. 
 dered. Tar claimants appealed to the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, where the judgment of the district court was allirmed. (See 
 report of the case, G Wall., 200.) 
 
 The Adehi was a small side-wheel steamer of light draught, fleet, 
 ■well adapted for service as a blockade-runner and for short trips like 
 those between Nassau and Charleston or Savannah, but unfit for 
 carrying on trade in voyages of the length of that from Liverpool to 
 Nassau. Her cargo on the outward voyage was light, consisting only 
 of twenty cases of Enfield rifles and twenty-five boxes of cartridges, 
 which had been discharged at Bermuda before her capture, and of some 
 
aoent's rkport. 
 
 129 
 
 tlfty packM;,'o.s of hoots and .slioos, wliicli wero captured andcondi'iiined, 
 and which were tlio siibji'ct of the chiim in ^'o. IVX], 
 
 This claim for tlio carp), in No. 393, was withdrawn by tho clainiants 
 by leave of the commission after the completion of the claimants' proofs. 
 In No. 3!>2 proofs were taken before the commission in addition to 
 those taken iit the pri/-o court, which were also put before the commis- 
 
 81UM. 
 
 The position of the Adtila, when first summoned by the capturing 
 vessel, as well as when actually captured, was a matter of dispute upon 
 the facts of the case, the w itnesses on the part of the claimant fjivin* 
 evidence tendinj'' to show that when first summoned, as w«'ll as when 
 actually captured, she was within a marine league of the shores of the 
 island of Abaco, while the evidence on the part of the defence tended 
 to show that at both times she was more than that distance from the 
 shore and upon the hifjfh seas. 
 
 On the part of the claimant it was contended that there was no sulll- 
 rient proof of the Adela beinjif en«ja<;ed in an unlawful voyaj;(^ ; and 
 also that the capture, beiny; made within British and neutral waters, was 
 unlawful and void, and the owners entitled to make reclamation. 
 
 On the part of the [Jnited States it was maintained that the pre- 
 ponderance of the evidence was in favor of the lawfulness of the cap- 
 ture as made upon the high seas, and not in the neutral waters of Great 
 Britain. 
 
 The counsel for the United States urged that the doctrine of the- 
 sovereignty of the i)r()prietary nation over the sea for a njarine league* 
 from the shore is founded in the idea of a proper and necessary pr«). 
 tection to the adjacent coasts, and to the vessels resorting to them for 
 legitimate trade. That in its original inception this doctrine never 
 included the idea that a vessel engaged iw an unlawful voyage might; 
 protect herself from capture, to which she would be subject on the high' 
 seas, by merely skirting the coast of a harborless and substantially 
 uninhabited island, such as the island of Abaco. That although strictly 
 and technically the coast of such an island might be within the pro- 
 tection of the rule, it was only technically so; and that where a claim' 
 is set up for the protection of a vessel actually engaged in an unlawful 
 voj'age, and claiming a capture otherwise lawful to be made nidawful 
 by reason of being within a marine league of the shore of such an 
 island, a judicial tribunal should require strict and conclusive proof to 
 bring the vessel within the technical rule, and to satisfy them that the 
 neutrality of the proprietary nation had been in fact violated. That 
 the burden of proof, therefore, devolved strictly and onerously ui)on the 
 claimants; and that on the evidence appearing in this case it would be 
 unjust to resolve any doubts which the commission might httvein thia> 
 regard iu favor of the claimants. 
 
 The claim was unanimously disallowed. 
 9 H 
 
 i>, 
 
 I 
 
 
 1-:^ 
 
 4 n 
 
130 
 
 AMKRICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 li ■ 
 
 ! ; 
 
 
 The bark Iliiiw'atlia; Miller & Mosman, No. 308, and Ezokiel McLeod, 
 assignee, No, 3!)(), claimants for the vessel ; Watkiiis & Leigh, No. 
 400 ; Dalgetty, DuCroz & Co., No. 401 ; William T. Marshall, No. 402, 
 HJid the executors of Charles Mciiwen, No. 45'2, elaiinatits for cargo. 
 
 The Hiawatha was captured by the United States blockading tleet, in 
 Hampton Roads, at the month of the James River, on the liOtli May, 
 1801, in attempting to pass through the blockading fleet on an outward 
 voyage fiom Richmond, Va., for Liverpool. She was taken into the 
 port of New York, and vessel and cargo there libelled in the United 
 States district court, and condemned. (See report of the cast in that 
 court, IJhitchford'a Prize Cases, p. 1.) On appeal, first to the circuit 
 court and thence to the Supreme Court, the decree of the district court 
 was aflirmed, the opinion of the Supreme Court being delivered by Mr. 
 Justice Grier, and a dissenting opinion being read by Mr. Justice 
 Nelson, in wiiich Chief Justice Taney and .Tustices Catron and Clifford 
 concurred. (See re])ort in the Supreme Court under title of " The Prize 
 Cases," 2 Black, 635 to 099.) 
 
 This was one of the rtrst vessels captured during the war, and one of 
 the first upon the validity of whose capture adjudications were had in 
 the prize courts of both original and appellate jurisdiction. In the 
 Supreme Court, where tl)e case was argued in connection with those of 
 several other vessels captured about the same time, and involving to 
 some extent the same general principles, the question of the validity 
 of t)ie blockade established under the President's proclamations of 10th 
 and 27th Aprd, 18G1, (12 Stat, at L., 1258, 1259,) and that of the lia- 
 bility of the property of persons domiciled within the insurrec-tionary 
 States to capture on the high seas as enemy'3 property, were elalu)rately 
 argued. The majority of the court sustained the validity of the block- 
 iwle and the right of capture of property of citi/:ens of the insurrec- 
 tionary States upon the high seas as enemy's property. The minority 
 of the court held " that no civil war existed between the United States 
 and the States in insurrection till recognized by the act of Congress of 
 13th July, 18GI, (12 Stat, at L., 255 ;) Mmt the President of the United 
 States does not possess the power under the Constitution to declare 
 war or recognize its existence within the meaning of the law of nations, 
 which carries with it belligerent rights, and thus change the country 
 and all its citizens from a state of peace to a state of war; that this 
 power belongs exclusively to Ihe Congress of the United States, and, 
 consequently, that the President had no power to set on foot a block- 
 ade under the law of nations ; and that the capture of the vessel and 
 cargo in this case and in all cases before us in which the capture occurred 
 before the 13th July, 1801, for breach of blockade or as enemy's prop- 
 erty, are illegal and void, and that the decrees of condemnation should 
 be reversed, and the vessel and cargo restored." (2 Black, 008, GOQ.) 
 
 The case of the Hiawatha was this : She sailed from Liverpool on 
 the 11th February, 1861, with a cargo of salt for Richmond, Va., thence 
 
AGKXT S KEPORT. 
 
 131 
 
 to take cargo back to Liverpool. She passed Ilainpton Roads, at the 
 mouth of the James River, on the 23(1 April, and arrived at City l*oint, 
 the port of Richmond, a few miles below that city on the James River, 
 on the 29tii April. She completed the discharge of her outward cargo 
 on the 10th May ; immediately comiMenced lading with her return 
 cargo, (consi-sting principally of tobacco,) ctud completed this lading on 
 the 14th or 15th May. On the 16th she weighed anchor and attempted 
 to go to sea without pilot or steam-tug, but was prevented by head- 
 winds. On the 17th a tug attempted to take her out of harltor, but 
 was prevented by the breaking of the tow-line. On the 18th sJie was 
 taken in tow by another steamer and towed down the river to within 
 about twenty miles of Hampton Roads. From this point she floated 
 down with the tide toward the Roads, and on the 2(>tli was boiirded 
 by an officer from a United States blockading vessel, v.ho endorsed 
 upon her register this notice : 
 
 This vessel (the Hiawatha) has been boarded by the United States blockading 
 squadron, and warned uot to enter any port in Virginia or south of it. 
 
 S. H. BROWN, 
 Blockading Officer, Vititvd States Steamer Star. 
 May 20. 1861. 
 
 On the same day, and while still floating with the tide in Hampton 
 Roads, she was seized by the United States war-steamer Minnesota, and 
 thereafter taken into port and libelled, as above recited. 
 
 President Lincoln's proclamation estjiblishing blockade of the ports 
 of Virginia was issued 27th April, 1861, (12 Stat, at L., 1259.) Under 
 that proclamation the blockade of the ports of Virginia upon the Chesa- 
 peake Bay and the .Fames River was actually established by Commo- 
 dore Peudergrast, and a proclamation made of same on the 30th April. 
 On the 8th May, Lord Lyons communicated to Mr. Seward a letter from 
 the British consul at Richmond, dated 5fch May, in which the consul 
 had said to Lord Lyons : 
 
 Tliero are parties hero about to load the British ship Hiawatha at City Point for 
 Liverpool, nnder the impression that she will be allowed free egress by the blockading 
 squadron, I have told persons who arc here representing the owners of the ship that 
 I see no difficulty to the ship leaving in ballast ; but to this they will not cf)nsent, as 
 the ship oauio here expressly from Liverpool at a nominal freight to load a reniunerai.ive 
 cargo back. 
 
 Lord Lyons stated to Mr. Seward the hardship of the case of the Hia- 
 watha, in case she should be compelled to return home in ballast in con- 
 sequence of the blockade, of which, of course, her owner j could have 
 had no knowledge when they sent her out, and submitted the case for 
 the consideration of the Goverum'.rit of the United States, requesting an 
 early answer. 
 
 ]\Ir. Seward answered on the 9th May, enclosing a letter from the Sec- 
 retary of the Navy, in which he said : 
 
 Fifteen days have been spHcifled as a limit for neutrals to leave the ports, after ac- 
 tual blockade has conitneuced, with or without cargo, aud there are yet remaiuiug five 
 
132 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMIS.SION. 
 
 ^Ill 
 
 \ ill 
 
 li 1 4 
 
 or six cliiys for nentraU to leave. With proper diligence on the part of persons inter- 
 ested, I see no reason for exemi)tion to any.. 
 
 Lord Ljons again wrote Mr. Seward on the 9tb May, acknowledging 
 tbe receipt of Mr. Seward's letter, and saying : 
 
 In order to avoid all possible mistake with regard to the Hiawatha, as well as to 
 future cases of the same kind, I venture to request you to iKform nie whether I am 
 right in concluding, from the statement just quoted, that the date of the shipment of 
 the cargo is immaterial, and that vessels leaving the ports betbre the expiration of the 
 fifteen days will be allowed to proceed with their cargoes, whether such cargoes 
 were shipped before or after the actual beginning of the eft'ective blockade. 
 
 This letter was answered by Mr. Seward on May 11, enclosing another 
 
 letter from the Secretary of the Navy, as follows : 
 
 In answer to Lord Lyons's letter of the 9th instant, I have the honor to inform you 
 that neutral vessels will be allowed fifteen days to leave port after the actual estab- 
 lishment of the blockade, whether snch vessels are with or without cargoes. 
 
 Lord Lyons responded to Mr. Seward on May 11, thanking him for bis 
 prompt information, reciting tbe correspondence, and saying : 
 
 I have, consequently, instructed Her Majesty's consuls to advise mastere of British 
 vessels that they are at liberty to take cargo on board as wei ncei- as before the com- 
 mencement of the blockade, and that they will be allow- . 9",i . lays to go to sea, 
 •whether with or without cargoes, and whether their carg' ,' b'^ 1 i^^ped before or after 
 the actual commencement of the efi'ective blockade. 
 
 On tbe same day Lord Lyons sent to the British consuls at Rich- 
 mond and other ports a circular, as follows : 
 
 Neutral vessels will be allowed fifteen diiys to leave port after the actual commence- 
 ment of the blockade, whether such vessels aie with or without cargoes, and whether 
 the cargoes were shipped before or after the commencement of the blockade. 
 
 He also sent, on tbe same day, a dispatch to Kear- Admiral Sir A. 
 
 JMilne, of Her Majesty's navy, enclosing, with other documents, copies 
 
 of the procliunation of tbe President of April 27, of the notice of 
 
 blockade by Commodore Pendergrast of April 30, and saying: 
 
 The general result of inquiries made by me or other foreign ministers ho o, as to the 
 manner in which the blockade will be conducted, appears to be — 
 
 1. That the date of the commencement of the blockade in each loca"l;7 v.i'J !:3 fixed 
 by the issue of a notice by the commanding officer of the s>,iia('|] t npi; ! ''ed to 
 blockade it. It does not, however, appear to be intended that snch lu., «tti,)]l be 
 otficially conunuuieated to the governments of neutral nations, or to the'' *.^ ; • ita- 
 tives in this country. 
 
 2. That fifteen days from- the beginning of the effective blockade will be allowed, in 
 every case, for neutral vessels already in port to put to sea. 
 
 '.i. That, until tlie fifteen days have expired, neutral vessels will be allowed to come 
 out with or without cargoes, and whether their cargoes were shipped before or after the 
 actual commencement of the blockade. 
 
 4. That, except in the last-nieni.oued particulav, the ordinary rules of blockade will 
 be strictly enforced. 
 
 5. The armed vessels of the neutral states will have the ^h* t > •■ >t r .and depart 
 from the blockaded ports. 
 
 I continue to bo of opiuiou that, provided the blockade be effective and oe carried ou 
 in conformity with the law of nations, we have uo other course, iu the abseuce of posi- 
 tive instructions from Her Majesty's gov.^rni'i'jui,, 'hau to recognize it. 
 
AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 133 
 
 1:3 fixed 
 
 " -lid to 
 
 H"L;fll be 
 
 '" .1 ta- 
 
 in the ilecisiou of the cause in tbe district court, Judge Betts ex- 
 pressed the opinion that the correspondence between Mr. Seward iuid 
 Lord Lyons did not constitute any reh^xation of the general rule limiting 
 the right of departure of neutral vessels from a blockaded port to siK!h 
 cargo as had been laden before receiving notice of the blockade ; so 
 that, if the Hiawatha had departed within the fifteen days allowed foi' 
 departure after the establishment of the blockade, she would not have 
 been entitled to take ont the cargo laden after knowledge of tiie block- 
 ade, (Blatchford's Prize Cases, p. 20.) The Supreme Court, however, 
 distinctly overruled Judge Betts upon this point, saying: 
 
 After a careful examination of the correspondence of the State and Navy Depart- 
 inents, fonnd iu the record, we are not satislied that the British minister erred in the 
 fonstructiou he put upon it, which was that a license was given to all vessels in the 
 blockade*! ports t(» dot)art with their cargoes within fifteen days -ifter the blockade was 
 established, whether the cargoes were taken on board before or after the notice of tbe 
 blockade. All reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the claimants. Any other 
 course would be i'x^anKisteut with the right admiuistratiou cf the law and the charac- 
 ter of a j ust government. 
 
 The British consul at Richmond gave to the master of the Hiawatlm, 
 on the loth May, a certificate stating that, according to the best infor- 
 mation attainable by him, the effective blockade at the mouth of the 
 James Kiver began on the 2d May. After the capture of the vessel, cor- 
 respondence ensued between Lord Lyons and Mr. Seward, in which 
 Lord Lyons earnestly recommended the case of the Hiawatha to the 
 favorable consideration of the United States Government, saying that 
 it appeared "that the master of this vessel was innocent of any inten- 
 tion to break the blockade, and tuat his not having passed the blocikad- 
 ing squadron earlier was due to erroneous information or unavoidable 
 'detentions." lie also called attention to the cases of the Haxall and 
 the Octavia, and expressed the hope that the Government of the United 
 States -vonld be disposed to extend to the Hiawatha the same favor 
 which had been shown to those vessels. 
 In another letter to Mr. Seward, Lord Lyons said : 
 
 I do not, of course, consider myself competent to make iiny comments upon tho 
 decision of Jndge Betts on questions of law; nor do I ground my present application 
 iipon h'gal considerations at all. My desire is, in conformity with tiie learned judge's 
 own suggestion, to obtain relijf for the owners of tli;; Hiawatha by an app ial to the 
 ecpiity and indulgence of the Goverumeut of tho United States, 
 
 And agaii : 
 
 That, by giving reiior to the memorialists, the ITnited States Government would 
 evince a spirit of comity and generosity which would be highly api)r(!ciated by the 
 goveruuHint of Her Majesty, 
 
 In the cases of the Tropic Wind, the Haxall aiul the Octavia, those 
 were vessels captured about the same time with the Hiawatha, and 
 under similar circumstances had been released by order of the Govern- 
 ment, on the application of parties interested or their respective govern- 
 ments, the Tropic Wind after judgment of condemnatiou, and the 
 Haxall and Octavia beforejudgmeut. 
 
 } 
 
 C^':'' 
 
 'i-it 
 
 •.f 
 
 li 
 
 ii 
 
1 in!''ri'' 
 
 134 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 Ill cases No. 400 and 401, the memorials failed to show the respective 
 claimants the owners of the portions of the cargo claimed by them, but 
 showed those portions respectively to be the property of one David 
 Duulop, a resident of Petersburgh, Va., who was shipping them to the 
 claimants in performance of executory contracts between him and the 
 respective claimants for that purpose. 
 
 lu the ca^e of Wm. T. Marshall, No. 402, the memorial showed that 
 the claimant was, at the time of the capture, domiciled in Richmond, Ya. 
 
 Demurrers were interposed in those cases, specifying these respective 
 grounds. 
 
 In the ease of McE wen's executors, No. 452, the proofs showed the 
 testator domiciled at Kichmond down to .about the time of the capture ; 
 but about that time, the proofs failing to show whether shortly before 
 or shortly after, he returned to the domicile of his nativity in Great 
 Britain, where he ever after remained until his death. 
 
 On the part of the claimants it was contended that, irrespective of the 
 ' 'ct rule of prize law applicable totiie case of the Hiawatha, the case 
 > one where in "justice and equity " the claimants were entitled to 
 indemnity, being without intentional fault, and morally, at least, inno- 
 cent of any intention to violate the blockade, or do any illegal or pro- 
 hibited act ; that the master of the vessel had used the utmost diligence 
 in lading his vessel Avithiu the time which he was informed he was en- 
 titled to consume in lading it, and had been i)revented from reaching 
 Hampton lloads within the time limited, by causes beyond his control ; 
 that he ought not to be made to suffer for the accidents that had de- 
 juived him of the services of a pilot and the aid of steam, nor for the 
 winds that retarded the progress of his ship to sea, nor by reason of the 
 master's failure, in the emergency of an unexpected Avar, to understand 
 the exact legal signiticance of proclamations of the President, and the 
 legal c'.nsecpiences of blockade ; that at the time of the capture no war 
 existed between the United States .and the Confederate States, by virtue 
 of which the blockade of the confederate ports could be lawfully estab- 
 lished : that no such war could be taken as existing until recognized by 
 the act of Congress of 13th July, 18GI ; that consequently the President 
 had no power to set on foot a blockade of the ports in question under 
 the law of nations prior to the 13th July, 1801 ; that the capture of 
 the Hiawatha and her cargo, whether for breach of blockade or as en- 
 emy':, property, was illegal and void ; and that by the terms of the Presi- 
 dent's proclamation the vessel was entitled to a warning indorsed on her 
 l)apers by an ofiicer of the blockading force, and was not liable to cap- 
 ture, except for an attempt to leave port after such warning. 
 
 As part of his argument, the counsel for the claimant cited and 
 adopted the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Nelson in " The prize cases," 
 (2 Black, 682.) He cited also the case of the Neptuuus, (3 Hob., 110, 
 173 J and Medeiros vs. Hill, 8 Biug., 231.) 
 
AGENT S 'REPORT. 
 
 135 
 
 Oq the part of the United States it was contended that, as a matter of 
 fact, war actually existed between the United States and tlie Confede- 
 rate States at and from the dates of the respective proclamations of 
 blockade by the President on the lOtli and 27th April, 18G1, Virginia 
 having seceded by ordinance of her convention on the 20th xVpril, and 
 having .actually and formally Joined the Confederate States on the 27th 
 April. That, war thus existing, the establishment of a blockade was 
 within the constitutional powers of the President as the chief executive 
 officer of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and 
 Navy. That :;ertainly as to foreign nations his acts were to be regarded 
 fully and completely as the acts of the United States, and the establish- 
 ment of a blockade by him was its establishment by the nation. That 
 the validity of tlie blockade so established by him was un«pu^stioned 
 by the Congress, which met after the issuing of the proclanmtion, 
 and while it was in the course of enforcement; and that it was expressly 
 legalized by the statute of Gtli August, 18G1, which legalized and made 
 valid the President's acts, proclamations, and orders, after the 4tli 
 March, 18G1, "resi)ecting the Army and Navy of the United States * * 
 with the same eli'ect as if they had been issued and done under the 
 previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United 
 States." (12 Stat, at L., o20.) That the validity of this blockade had 
 been fully recognized by the British government as well as all other 
 foreign powers as effectual and valid; citing the correspondence of Lord 
 Lyons, above recited, and Prof. Bernard's "Neutrality," t&c, p. 2;JL if. 
 That the proelamation of the President did not modify or assume to 
 »?!iodify the law of blockade as held by the rules of international law ; 
 and that it was only in case of a vessel innocently approaching the 
 blockaded i)ort without notice, that she was entitled to be duly warned off 
 before l»ecoming a sul- ect of capture; citing on this point the (Colum- 
 bia, 1 liob. 15(5; the Vrow Judith, id., 152; the Betsey, W., 332 ; the 
 Adelaide, 2 id., Ill; the Calypso, <>/., 298 ; the Tutela, id., 181; 3 
 Phillimore, 3!>1 ; Prof. Bernard's Neutrality, p. 23(J. Tiiat the misappre- 
 hension of legal rights by the master of the Hiawatha could not be taken 
 into account as excusing his action in attempting to pass out through 
 the blockade after the expiration of the time allowed him by the rules of 
 international law, and by the specific notice contained in the diplomatic 
 correspondence above recited for that purpose. And that the accidents 
 by which the claimants attempted to excuse the failure of the Hiawatha 
 to leave within the permitted time could not be held to make her de- 
 parture lawful, or exempt her from capture. 
 
 As to the argument of the claimant's counsel in favor of the rights of 
 the claimant before this commission, under general princii)les of justice 
 and equity outside of and beyond thopritjciples of international law as 
 held by the i)rize courts, the counsel for the United States held the 
 same general line of argument as above reported under the case of the 
 Sir William Peel, No. 243 ; and insisted that the fact of the Government 
 
 t 'is- .'* ' 
 
l^^r^ 
 
 my\; 
 
 136 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 
 r! 
 
 li* 
 
 of tlio Uiiited States having remitted its lawful claims for its own rea- 
 80U8 in the cases of the Tropic Wind, the Octavia, and the ilaxall, cer- 
 tainly could not be taken as any reason for enforcing as matter of right 
 the same generosity in the caseof the Hiawatha. 
 
 The coiiunissiou unanimously disallowed the claims of Watkins & 
 Leigh, No. 400, and of Dalgetty, Du Croz & Co., No. 401, on the.ground 
 that the ownership of the portions of the cargo claimed by them re- 
 spectively did not appear to be in them but in a citizen of the United 
 States. They also unanimously disallowed the claim of Wm. T. Mar- 
 shall, No. 402, it appearing that he was permanently domiciled in the 
 city of Kichmond within the enemy's country. 
 
 It made awards in favor of the claimants for the vessel in Nos. 398 
 and 390, amounting to $25,309; and an award in favor of the execu- 
 tors of jVIcEwen, No. 452, in respect of McE wen's por-tion of the cargo, 
 for $0,090; Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting from these three awards. 
 
 The steamer Peterhoif; Spence & Fleming, No. 405, claimants for 
 the vessel; James Wetherell, No. 400 ; Willian: Almond, No. 407; Al- 
 fred Wilson and others, No. 408; the same. No. 409; Joseph Si)ence, 
 No. 410 ; Alfred Lafone, No. 411 ; Charles S. Osborne and others. No. 
 412 ; Anna Louch, No. 413 ; Frederick D. Frost and others. No. 414 ; 
 Thomas P. Austin, No. 415; James Ilolgate, No. 410; Jarman & 
 Smith, No. 417: Welch, Margetson & Co., No. 422; WiK«on &xirm- 
 strong. No. 423; Grant, Brodie & Co., No. 424; Iline, Mundella & 
 Co., No. 425 ; Krnest Ellsworth, No. 420; Johti Ellsworth, No. 438 ; Wal- 
 ter Easton, trustee. No. 439; Robert Sinclair, No. 440; Tiiomas Edg- 
 ley & Co., No. 441 ; claimants for cargo. 
 
 This vessel was captured on the 25th February, 1803, in the Atlantic 
 Ocean, oil' the Island of St. Tiiomas, taken into the port of New York, 
 and there libelled as prize in the United States district court. A decree 
 of condemnation passed in that court against both vessel and cargo. 
 (See Blatchford's Prize Cases, 381, 403, to 550.) An appeal was taken to 
 the Supreme Court, which court reversed the decree of condemnation 
 by the district court, except as to a small portion of the cargo, found by that 
 court to be contraband of war, and intended for the ultinmte use of the 
 enemies of the United States, and belonging to the oiaimants in cases Nos. 
 408, J09, and 411, and except also so much of the remaining cargo of the 
 Peterhoff as belonged to the owners of the contraband goods thus con- 
 demned. The cause was thereupon remanded to the district court by 
 the Supreme Court, with directions to enter a decree in conformity to 
 the opinion of the Supreme Court. Pending the proceedings in the 
 prize courts, the vessel was taken by the authorities of the United 
 States, for the use of the government, under the statute for that pur- 
 pose above referred to under the case of the Granite City, No. 377. 
 The cargo was also sold by order of the district court, pending the pro- 
 ceedings. On the remanding of the cause to the district court, proofs 
 
AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 137 
 
 wore there taken as to the portions of the cargo condemned as contra- 
 band and its vaUie, and as to other portions of tlic cargo and their 
 value belonging to the owners of the contraband cargo, as to the costs of 
 the ca[)tors chargeable against the vessel, and as to the claimant's costs 
 chargeable against the ship, and the condemned and uncondemned cargo, 
 and these costs were duly apportioned accordingly'. The amount of 
 the appraised value at which the ship had been taken, less the costs 
 cliarged against Ler, was paid over to her owners. The proceeds of the 
 uncondemned cargo were also paid over to their respective owners, less 
 the proportion of claimant's costs against same, which costs were paid 
 to the proctors of the respective claimants, to whom thej' were, by the 
 tiual decree, allowed. No complaint appeared to have been made in 
 the district court as to the allowance or apportionment of the costs and 
 charges, or in respect of the appraised value at which the United States 
 had taken the vessel ; and no question in respect of either of these mat- 
 ters was taken to the Supreme Court on appeal. By stipulation of the 
 counsel for the respective parties, all the papers relating to the appraisal 
 and taking of the vessel by the United States were omitted from the 
 apostles sent up to the Sui)reme Court on appeal. 
 
 The claimants in iS^o. 405 claimed about £21,000, besides interest, for 
 the alleged value of the vessel, over and above the appraised value at 
 which she was takeu by the United States; and for freight and i)a.. age 
 money which they would have been entitled to receive, and costs and 
 expenses sustained b^' them. 
 
 The claimants in Nos. 40S, 40D, and 411 claimed about £0,000, besides 
 iuterest, tiie alleged value of their portions of tb'i cargo condemned, 
 including prospective prollts upon the sale of the same at Matamoras, and 
 their costs and expenses. 
 
 The claimants in the remaining cases claime<l about £40,000, besides 
 interest, for the alleged value of their portions of the cargo, including 
 prospective profits ou its sale at Matamoras, and their costs aud ex- 
 penses respectively, less the respective amounts received by them from 
 the proceeds of the cargo. 
 
 The proofs showed that the Peterhoff sailed from London for the 
 mouth of the llio Grande in January, 1803, the bills of lading other cargo 
 specifying the same as destined for Matamoras, and to be taken from along- 
 side the ship at the mouth of the Kio Grande. Included in the cargo were 
 some thirty-two cases of artillery harness, a large quantity of boots, 
 described in the invoices as " artillery boots," "men's army bluchers," &c. ; 
 ami eighty bales of blankets described in the invoice as '• government reg- 
 ulation gray blankets." Besides those portions, which were held by the 
 Supreme Court as belonging to the class of articles "manufactured 
 and primarily and ordinarily used for military purposes in time of w^ar," 
 and so contraband when destined to the use of a belligerent; the cargo 
 included large quantities of iron, steel, nails, leather, and drugs, 
 including 1,000 pounds of calomel, large amounts of morphine, 205 
 
 \''-0 
 
 m 
 
 
 !* ■'■■: 
 
 
 f (H 
 
 ^ r 
 

 i| 
 
 r^if 
 
 11 
 
 1 ■ 
 
 ! . 
 1 , ' 
 
 if 
 
 
 I i '' 
 
 i 
 
 I < 
 
 fi 
 
 138 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 pounds of chloroform, and 2,040 onnces of quinine, fill jGfoods in special 
 dentand for the use of the confederacy. Much of the cargo was 
 deliverable to order. A pacilcage deposited with the captain by 
 Mohl, one of the TexaTi passenj^ers, and which the cai)tain testified 
 he was told by Mohl contained " white powder," but which the mate tes- 
 tilied api>eared to be a package of "dispatches," was thrown overboard 
 by order of the captain on the boarding of the vessel by the captors. 
 Other papers were at the same time burned by the fireman by order of the 
 captain. The firm of James I. Bennett & Wake, London, were the agents 
 of the Peterhoif, and the cargo was mainly secured through then>. A cir- 
 cular of this firm was proved, dated 24th November, 18(52, in which they 
 notified their "' friends desirous of shipping to America" that tiiey would 
 dispatch a vessel to the liio Grande about 1st December; that the 
 services of Mr. Redgate, Lloyd's agent, an expert in cotton, and who had 
 been a resident nearly forty years in Texas and Mexico, had been secured, 
 whose services would "be of great value to shippers in respect to his 
 local knowledge and influence, as also as regards agency of the inland 
 transit and landing and shipping of goods and cotton." And further, 
 that " a Mr. Besbie, of the Confederate States of America, holds a contract 
 with that Government, whereby he is to receive 100 per cent, on invoice 
 cost, payable in cotton * # * for any goods he may deliver 
 
 into the Confederate States," the benefits of which contract he would 
 share to the extent of 50 per cent, with any houses that might feel in- 
 clined to ship. The i\Ir. Itedgate named in this circular was a passen- 
 ger on the Peterhoft" at the time of her capture, and was a claimant for 
 I)art of the cargo and for damages by occasion of his cai)ture and deten- 
 tion before the commission. The Mr. Besbie, or Begbie, also named in 
 the circular, joined the ship at Plymouth, but suddenly left it at Fal- 
 luouth. His name was not mentioned by the master in his deposition 
 injircparatorlo, who alluded to him merely as "another passenger" who 
 "left at Falmouth." Neither of the firm of Bennett & Wake was exam- 
 ined as a witness by the claimants before the commission, though notice 
 was given of the examination of Bennett, and proof was made that he 
 ■was within reach in London at the time of the taking of the testimony 
 for the claimants there, and the counsel appearing for the United States 
 on the examination demanded his production as a witness for the claim- 
 ants pursuant to the notice'. Bennett & Wake had contracted on the 
 27th October, 18G2, with Pile, Spence & Co., the owners of the Peter- 
 hoft", for the laying on of a first-class screw-steamer to proceed to the 
 Rio Grande on freight; under which contract the Peterhoft' was dis- 
 patched, as named in the circular of Bennett & Wake of 24th November, 
 18G2, above referred to. 
 
 The counsel for the United States referred to and adopted the opinion 
 of the Suj)reme Court, (5 Wall., 28,) as part of his argument. He main- 
 tained that the proofs before the prize court, especially strengthened as 
 they were by the proofs taken before the commission, fully sustained the 
 
agent's report. 
 
 139 
 
 condemnation of the portion of the carjyo condcmnort b}' the Supronje 
 Court .18 contraband, and in fact snflicientl}' ssliosvod the pri'tended desti- 
 nation of tlie vessel and carjjo to jMatamoras to be colorable. That if all 
 the proofs now appearing before the conunission had been before felie prize 
 court, they would have fully justified the condenination of the vessel 
 and the entire cargo. That in any event, the capture of the vessel and 
 taking her into port was justified by the presence of the (iontraband on 
 board, which was in fact liable to condemnation as well as by the circunj- 
 stances of the case, fully establishing probable cause. Tliat the evasions 
 and falsehood of the master, Jarmin, on his examination in prapanitorio, 
 and the spoliation of papers shown, of themselves debarred the claimants 
 from any award for costs or ('amages. That as to the taking of the 
 vessel by the United States at on ai)praisement below her alleged actual 
 value, and as to the alleged errors of the district court in the appor- 
 tionment of claimantis' costs upon that part of the cargo not condemned 
 in captor's costs, those were matters as to which no question was raised 
 in the prize-courts, and for which those courts afforded an ample remedy 
 if any injustice was done in respect of them to the claimants, or any of 
 them, and that the claimants could not be heard here for the lirst time 
 to question the legality of the proceedings in those respects. Tlnit as 
 to the apportionment of the claimants' costs, this appeared to have been 
 done not only without objection of the claimants in the prize court, but 
 on the application of their own proctors and counsel. And as to the 
 appraisement and taking by the United States, everything in relation 
 to these matters had been by stipulation withdrawn from the consider- 
 ation of the Supreme Court, thus clearly imi)lying the consent of the 
 owners to the taking at the valuation named. 
 
 Ou the part of the claimants it was contended that the portions of 
 the cargo condemned by the decree of the Supreme Court as contraband 
 were not in fact contraband, not primarily designed for military use, and 
 not shown to be destined for the use of the enemies of the United States. 
 That the voyage of the vessel was lawful from one neutral port to 
 another, and that her capture was wholly unjustified by any proof ot 
 intent to violate the blockade, or of unlawful conduct in any respect. 
 That the valuation at which the vessel was taken by the United States 
 Government was much less than her actual value, and that the United 
 States were justly chargeable with at least the sum of $30,000, on ac- 
 count of this difference in value. That the api>ortionmeut of claimants' 
 costs upon those portions of the cargo not condemned in costs was un- 
 lawful. That the question of costs had already been settled by the de- 
 cree of the Supreme Court ; and that the district court in charging these 
 clainmnts' costs upon those parts of the cargo exempted from costs by 
 the decree of the Supreme Court, disregarded and violated that decree. 
 
 The commission unanimously disallowed all the claims. 
 
 <♦.? 
 
 \i- 
 
 n 
 
 
 liM 
 
 The steamship Georgia ; Edward Bates, M. P., claimant, No. 421. 
 The memorial of the claimant in this case recited that the Georgia 
 

 140 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 
 p 1 1« 
 
 > < i ll 
 
 I' 
 
 ■was at» iirmcd vessel of the Confederate States. That she caine into 
 the port of Liverpool on or about tlie 2d May, I8(it ; was tliei(^ dis- 
 urnied and advertised for sale; and that the claimant, on the 2d June, 
 18G4, i)ur('hased her without any armament, and paid for her in good 
 faith the sum of jC1."5,000 sterling, her full value at the time of the pur- 
 chase. That he immediately changed her* iiiiernal arrangements to 
 lit her for use as a merchant steamer, and on the 18th July, 1804, 
 chartered her to the Portuguese government for a voyage to Lisbon, 
 Portugal, having si)ent a large sum of money in the alterations and tit- 
 tings to adapt her for carrying passengers and cargo pursuant to the 
 terms of the charter party. That under the charter-party the vessel 
 was laden by the Portuguese government with coals for the use of the 
 vessel, and duly cleared at Liverpool on her voyage to Lisbon. That 
 while pursuing that voyage, "in a peaceable manner and in violation of 
 no law whatsoever," she was unlawfully captured on the high seas by 
 the United States ship of Avar Niagara; was taken into the port of 
 Boston, there libelled in the United States district court, and con- 
 demned as lawful prize. That aii appeal was taken from the decree of 
 the district court to the Supreme Court of the United States, which on 
 the hearing affirmed the decree of condemnation. The claimant claimed 
 an award for £27,051, besides interest. 
 
 To thi^: memorial the United States demurred as setting forth no valid 
 claim against the United States ; in that the memorial showed the vessel 
 to have been an armed vessel of war of the so-called Confederate States 
 of America, which were, during the whole period of the transactions set 
 forth in the memorial, at war with the United States. That she entered 
 the neutral port of Liverpool in her character as such armed vessel of 
 war, and was there purchased 1 y t e claimant, her armament having 
 been first removed, with full know's^df e >i her former character as such 
 vessel of war, belonging to a power at war with the United States. 
 That;sucii purchase carried no title to the claimant as against the United 
 States, or as against their right to capture the vessel as a vessel of war; 
 and thi.t her subsequent capture by the United States, as set forth in the 
 memorial, was a lawful and valid capture, and the vessel was properly 
 and lawfully condemned by the i)rize courts. 
 
 The counsel for the United States submitted the case on demurrer on 
 the opinion of the Supreme Court, delivered on the affirmance of the de- 
 cree of co: demnatiou (7 Wall., 32) and without further argument. 
 
 Her Bill nnic Majesty's counsel hied an argument in behalf of theclaim- 
 ant, in which he contended that the doctrine held by the Supreme Court, 
 as establishing liability of the vessel to capture after her disarmament 
 and sale, was unsound and unsustained by the authorities cited in the 
 opini«>'i. He cited and discussed the authorities cited by the Supreme 
 Court in its opinion, to wit : The Minerva, 6 Rob., 31)7 ; the Baltic, 11 
 Moor( "s P. C. R., 145; Story's notes on the Principles and Practice of 
 Prize courts, 03 ; Wildmau, vol. 2, p. 90 ; and contended that these au- 
 
AGENTS RKPORT. 
 
 141 
 
 thoritios did not sustain the condnsionsof tlie Siipicnie Court on which 
 thi^ (leriee ofaflinniince was based. 
 Thechiiin was uiianiniously disallowed. 
 
 The iStoaniship Circassian; llonry Jann^s I'.nrkor, niortf.vMyve, Xo. 431}, 
 claimant for vessel ; Ovcrond, (Jurney & Co., niortjja^ees, claimants 
 for freight; The lioyal Exchange Assurance Corporatiou and others, 
 No. 4U, claimants for cargo. 
 
 Tbe Circassian was owned by Zachariah C. Tearson, of Mull, who had 
 given mortgages to the amount of £L*r),On() upon tlu^ vessel, which mort- 
 gages were held by the claimant Barker, No. 432. He had also assigned 
 her outward freight to Messrs. Overend, Gurney & Co., No. 433, by 
 way of security for indebtedness. The vessel sailed from JJordeanx, 
 France, on the 7th April, 18G2, under the charter-party hereinafter re- 
 cited. She was captured by a United States cruiser on the 4th INIay, 
 1SG2, on the high seas off the coast of Cuba, taken into the port of Key 
 West, and there libelled and condemned as prize. An appeal was taken 
 to the Supreme Cmnt, which court aflirmed the <lecree of condemnation, 
 !\Ir. Justi(!e Nelson dissenting. Tlie case is reported, with the dissent- 
 ing opinion of Mr. Justice Nelson, in 2 Wallace, 135 to 100. 
 
 The vessel was chartered by the owners 11th February, 1862, to 
 " J. Soubry, agent to the merchants of I'aris," being then on her way 
 from London to Cardiff, to proceed thence with all convenient speed to 
 Havre or Bordeaux, there to load ; " and being so loaded, shall there- 
 with proceed to Havana, Nassau, or Bermuda, as ordered on sailing, 
 and thence to i)roceed to a port of America, and to run the blockade, if 
 so ordered by freighters," the owners agreeing " mt to cover more than 
 half her value, say £20,000, hy insurance against war risk." The rate 
 of freight agreed upon was $40 per ton, with 10 per cent, primage. The 
 vessel was loaded at Bordeaux, shipping receipts being given by the 
 master in the following tenor, (after specifying the merchandise shipped :) 
 " Which said merchandise 1 promise to convey in my said steamer (the 
 dangers of the seas, machiupvy, and all other unavoidable accidents ex- 
 cepted) to the said port of Havana, there to- receive orders for the final 
 destination of my said steamer, and there to deliver the same to Messrs. 
 Brulatonr & Co., or their order, (or to order generally,) he or they pay- 
 ing me freight in accordance with ^Vii terms of my charter-party, which 
 is to be considered the supreme law as regards the voyag«; of said 
 steamer, the orders to be received for her and her final destination." A 
 " memorandum of affreightment," given to Mr. Bouvet, one of the 
 shippers, was found among the papers of the vessel, the translation of 
 which is as follows : 
 
 Memorandum of affreightment. 
 
 Taken on freight of Mr. Bouvet, jeune, by order and for acconnt of Mr. J. Soubry 
 ou board of tbe British steamer Circassian, Captain Hunter, bound to Nassau, Ber- 
 muda, or Havana, tlio quantity of fifty or sixty-five tons, heavy or light, at the rate of 
 840 per ton for the heavy and the light, besides 10 per cent, average and x>rimage. 
 
 ■M' 
 
:K 
 
 142 
 
 AMERICAN-imiTISII CLAIMS COMMISSI^ 
 
 The mnrfilmiidiso miiHt bo put on himni, uicliiilin;; all delay, tlio day afkor notice, 
 givoii Ity Mi(< lirokor liaviii^ iii cliar^n tliu loailin;;, iiiidur tlio pniiaUy of all daina^us 
 uikI Mic. Ions III' Mn' piiico on lioiird, witlioiit rocoiirst; to judicial incasiinw to pi'ovu tiio 
 Huit tor iioii-i-\i-ciitioii of tilt) present cii;r;i<rc!iiciit. 
 
 Mr. J. Soiiliry <Mi;^a;;c,s to execute the cliartcr-iiarty of alVrei<rlituicn't, tliat in to wvy, 
 tliat tlie mcnliaiidise .sliall not bo diseiiibarktMl but at the port of New Orleans, and to 
 tliiN eU'ect lie engages tu forcu the blockadu, fur uccoiiut and with authority of J, 
 Soubry. 
 
 LAIUEUT, Nenit. 
 
 l\(mvF.\v\, the I'ilh Frhntan/, 18G'i. 
 Sunt a similar inoinoranduni to the parties concerned. 
 
 r. DESUORDES. 
 
 Otlier papers were destroyed by the master of the Circassian after she 
 had been stopped, and before she was boarded by the captors. Tiie ves- 
 sel was captured, as above stated, on tiie Ith May, 1802. Five days pre- 
 vious to the capture — on the 2!)th April, 18(}2 — tiie city of New Orleans 
 was captured l>y the Navy and Army of the United States, under Admi- 
 ral Farrajjut find General Butler, and thenceforward continued in the 
 j)ossession of tlie United States to the termination of the war. A proc- 
 lamation was issued by (Jreneral Butler, dated 1st May, printed by some 
 Federal soldiers in a printingoftice seized for that purpose, on the 2d 
 iVIay, and lirst jjenerally published in the newspapers of the city on the 
 0th May; which proclamation declared, amono; other thinofs, that '' the 
 city of New Orleans and its environs, witi dl its interior and exterior 
 defences, havino- been surrendered to the Mued naval and land forces 
 
 of the United States; and having beeiie. .. ..dced by the rebel forces, in 
 whose occupation they lately were; and being now in occupation of the 
 forct-s of the United States, who have come to restore oriler, maintain 
 public trancpiility, and enforce peace and quiet under the laws and Con- 
 stitution of the United States, the major-general hereby makes known 
 and proclaims the objects and purpose of the Government of the United 
 States in thus taking possession of the city of New Orleans and the 
 State of Louisiana. « * # ♦ ^^ rights of property of 
 whatever kind will be held inviolate, subject only to the laws of the 
 United States," &c. This proclamation also declared the city under 
 martial law. 
 
 In the case of the Venice, (2 Wall., 27G,) the Supreme Court of t»he 
 United States held that the military occupation of the city was to be 
 considered as substantially complete from the date of this publication 
 in the newspapers, (0th May.) 
 
 On the 12th May, President Lincoln issued a proclamation reciting 
 the blockade, up to that time, of the port of New Orleans, with two other 
 |)orts, and that the blockade of those ports "may now be safely 
 relaxed with advantage to the interests of commerce," and declaring 
 that the blockade of those ports "shall so far cease and determine from 
 and after the 1st day of June aext; that commercial intercourse with 
 those ports, except as to persons, things, and information contraband 
 
 she 
 
AGENTS RErOUT. 
 
 143 
 
 il'OVO tin) 
 
 Ih to way, 
 IS, iiikI to 
 ity of J. 
 
 , Nevtii. 
 If, 1662. 
 
 HIDES. 
 
 ifter slio 
 Che ves- 
 iiys pro- 
 Orleans 
 r Adini- 
 tl ill the 
 A proo- 
 by some 
 n the 2(1 
 y on the 
 lilt '" the 
 exterior 
 111 forces 
 brces, in 
 Ml of the 
 uaintain 
 mil Con- 
 s known 
 e United 
 anil the 
 iperty of 
 s of the 
 ty under 
 
 't of Ijhe 
 ras to be 
 blication 
 
 reciting 
 wo other 
 )e safely 
 leclaring 
 
 ine from 
 irse with 
 tttraband 
 
 of war, may from that time bo carried on, subject to the laws of the 
 United States," itcc. (12 Stat, ai L,, 12<;.5, 12(;i.) 
 
 Itarker, iis mortfragoe of the vessel, (No. ■t.'{2,) claimed ilL'.'V-'OO, besides 
 interest. Ovi'iend, (Inrney & Co., assi^jnees of the ontward froi<,'ht, 
 (No. 43.1.) cliiimi'd ,£10,00!), besides interest. The insurance companies 
 smd underwiiters (No. 414) claimed JCr)2,().'5(», besides interest, the value of 
 the cargo insured by them, abandoned by the owners, and paid for as 
 for a totid loss. Of the cargo thus insured, jKutions to the value of 
 £ll,ri(K"i were alleged to have been owned by IJritish subjects and 
 insured by tiu' clainmnts, IJritish underwriters. The remainder of the 
 cargo, valneil at £H,1.{.'{, was admitted to have been owned by French 
 merchants residing at JJordeanx, though insured by Ibitish under- 
 writers. On tlie sale under the decree of condemnation the gross pro- 
 ceeds of the vessel were 8107,000, United States currency; the gross 
 proceeds of tlic! caigo were 8243,470.40 in the same currency. 
 
 On the piirt of the claimants it was maintained — 
 
 1. That the immediate destination of the Circassian at the time of 
 her cajiture was Havana, a neutral port; that this destination was a 
 real one; and that the question whether her voyage was to extend 
 beyond Havana was an open question, not to be decided until her ar- 
 rival there; so that her capture before reaching Havana could not be 
 considered a captuv in the coarse of a voyage to a blockaded port; 
 that until her arrival at Havana and departure thence for a blockaded 
 port, a litem pen iff nf hi; exinta}, even if the original design had been that 
 she shoulil proceiul from Havana to New Orleans. 
 
 2. That notwithstanding the doctrines held by the prize courts of 
 England and the United States, the nu>re api)roved modern authorities 
 overrule the doctrine of the droit de prevention and droit dc xuite ; 
 "that is to say, the right of considering as guilty of a violation of the 
 blockade every neutral vessel which has sailed for a place dechired 
 blockaded after knowledge of the notitication ; and of regarding in fla- 
 granti delict), during the whole return voyage to its port of destination, 
 every vessel wliich has left a blockaded port ;" aiul hold as the better 
 doctrine that " the guilty vessel can only be seized, first, at the moment 
 of violating the blockade by crossing the part of the sea which has been 
 conquered by tiie blockading squadron ; second, in the road or blockaded 
 port, if the investing force can enter there, either by taking the port or 
 by penetrating there by force or stratagem and carrying ott' the vessel ; 
 and third, at the moment of attempting to go out, that is to say, when 
 crossing the territory of a nation whose law it has violated, even al- 
 though the departure in itself should be innocent." That under this 
 doctrine the capture of the Circassian was unlawful on the high seas, 
 even if her direct destination was a blockaded port. 
 
 3. That by the terms of the President's proclamation of blockade, as 
 well as by the rules of internatioual law, the Circassian conld not be law- 
 
144 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 
 fully captured until she had received due notice of the blockade by warn- 
 ing entered upon her register. 
 
 4. That by tlie capture of Xew Orleans and the reduction of that city 
 to the possession and control of the United States before the capture of 
 the Circassian, the blockade of that port had ceased ; that the fight of 
 blockade being a purely' belligerent right, and in respect of an enemy's 
 port, of necessity terminates eo biHtanti on the caphire of the blockaded 
 port itself by the blockading belligerent; that in the case of New Or- 
 leans, not only was the fact of its capture in the month of April, and 
 its permanent and. complete occupancy and control by the United States 
 from that time forward fully attested as a matter of history, but such 
 possession and occupation wasoflicially asserted and proclaimed by the 
 proclamation of General J3utler on the 1st May, IcSU'i ; that this proc- 
 lamation speaks from its date, and not from the time of its alleged gen- 
 eral publication in the newspapers, erroneously assumed by the Supreme 
 Court to hav(^ been on the Otli May, it in fact having been published in 
 the New Orloans Daily Picayune on the 4th May, 1802, as appeared by 
 a copy of that pai)er produced before the commission ; that the right to 
 close or coiitrol the captured port by municipal regulation under the 
 statute of 13th July, 18G1, {VI Stat, at L., 2515, 2."»7,) was not nly en- 
 tirely distinct fro?n, but inconsistent with ^lie belligerent riglit of block- 
 ade, and that the former right accrued when the latter terminated, upon 
 the capture and complete possession of the city; and that, under the 
 municipal regulations instituted, or to be instituted, in such caiie, plaiidy 
 no capture could be made on the high seas, those jnunicipal regnl itions 
 not operating extra territorially ; that the blockade having thus termi- 
 nated by the cai)ture of New Orleans, the right of capture of the Cir- 
 cassian, if it had existed until then, necessarily terminated with the 
 termination of the blockade, the vessel no longer being in (Idkto. That 
 in regard to the claims of the insurance companies and un lerwriters in 
 No. 444, those claims were the legitimate subject of rechimalion before 
 this commission, as well in respect of those portions of the insured cargo 
 originally owned by French merchants as of those owned l)y Britiali 
 subjects; that upon abandonment and payment tiie title of the under- 
 writers becante absolute to all interest of the insured in the property, 
 and to all right of reclamation in respect of the same, and that such 
 title related back to the date of the insurance. 
 
 The counsel for the claimants presented manuscript opaiions of doc- 
 tors rhillinu)reand Lushington, and other counsel, holding the capture 
 of the Circassian illegal on account of the lack of previous warning, as 
 well as upon the ground of the previous capture and occui>ation of New 
 Orleans. They also presented the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Nel- 
 son, in the case of the Circassian, (2 Wall., 155,) as a correct exposition 
 of the law aj>plicable to the case, and cited the following au'''orities : 
 The Prize Cases (2 IJlack, 035) ; the Amy Warwick (2 Sprague, 123) 
 the Venice (2 Wall,, 259) ; Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar vs, Pyle (5) Cranch, 
 
AGENT'S KEPORT. 
 
 145 
 
 101); The United States vs. Rice (1 Wheat., 240) ; Fleming rs. Puffe (J) 
 How., (i(Ki); Cioss m. llanison (10 How., 104); The Abby (5 Uob., 25;}) ; 
 The Treiitle Soztie (0 liob.,3«() ,.j; The Fiaiicisea (10 MooreV V. C. K., 
 37); Pafli, PrincipcH dc droit pub. mer., 180; Dana's Wheat., 087 n; 
 The Lizette (0 Kob,, 395); The Empres.s (lilatch. P. C, 059); Dean's 
 Law of IJloekade 2,32; liawrence's Wlieaton, pp. 30,100,459,510,777 
 to 779, 810. 845, 848 to 850, 970 ; Wheaton's Life of Pinckney, U»9 to 228 ; 
 The Dickinson (III. and M., 31) ; La Jcune Engcuie, [2 Mason, 409, 
 403); The Louis (2 Dods., 110); The Antelope (10 Wheat, 122); The 
 Mary Anna Flora (11 Wheat., 442) ; Lawrence's Visitation and Seardi, 
 73,79; Hudson r.s'.Guestier (OCranch, 281); llace rs. lliniely (4 Cranch, 
 272) ; 2 Phill., 237 : American State Papers, vol. 4, j)p. 150, 158 ; The 
 Arthur (1 Dods., 425) ; Ilautefeuille, vol, 2, pp. 239, 2i4 ; Vos vs. United 
 States Insurance Com[)any (1 Caines's Cases in i^'^rror, XXIV) ; Van<leii- 
 heuvel vu. Same (2 id., 217) ; Liotard vs. Graves (3 Caines's Kep's, 239) ; 
 FItzsimmons vs. The Newport Insurance Company (4 Cranch, 185) ; 
 Uill r.s'. United States (C. Cls. K.,); The Maria (5 Kcb., 305); The Mary 
 land Insurance Company vs. Wood (0 Craneh, 29) ; The Admiral, (3 
 Wall., 014) ; Attoiiiey-General's Opinions, vol. 1, p. ."iOo ; The Frederick 
 Molke (1 Kob., 87); The liolla (0 id., 372); The Success (1 Dods., 
 134) ; La Peyre vs. United States, in U. S. Sup. Ct., MS. opin., not yet 
 reported; Uynkershoek de rebus bcUivis, li. X\^I; The Grey-Jacket (5 
 Wall., 342) ; S. C, on nu)tion (id., 370) ; Tudor's Leadinj; Cases on 
 Mercantile and Maritime Law, 887; Texas vs. White (7 Wall., 789); 
 Coinegys vs. Vasse (1 Peters, 210); Shei»herd rs. Taylor (5 n/., 712); 
 Trevol vs. P.ache (14 id., 95) ; Gill vs. Oliver's Exec-tors (11 How., 529) ; 
 Jaudon vs. Corcoran (17 id., 012) ; Gracie vs. New York Insurance 
 Company (8 Johnson's li., 237); Watson vs. Insurance Company ot 
 North AnuM'ica (1 Binney, 47); Carlisle vs. United States, in Sup. Ct., 
 not yet reported. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was contended that the voyage of 
 the Circassian was plainly undertaken vith the purpose and intent of 
 violating the blockade; tiuit she was under express contract with her 
 freighters to violate it, and was in the a(!tual prosecution of the voyage 
 with that purpose and destination when cai)tured, and was thereby 
 liable to capture and conde'unation. (The Columbia, 1 Kob., 150.) That 
 having full knowledge of viie existence of tiu^ blockade, and having ex- 
 juessly undertaken its v olation, no further notice or warning was neces- 
 sary to justify her capture. 
 
 That New Orleans, which had been fully and completely an enemy's 
 city, and one of the enemy's chief uuirts from the outbreak of the rebel- 
 lion in 1801 to its occupation by the Army and Navy of the United States 
 on the 29th April, 1802 — five days before the capture of the Circassian — 
 had not been reduc^ed to the fixed, stable and assured possession of the 
 United State* ut the time of that capture. That the mere possess io pedis 
 of the city by the United States did not work the instant termiuation 
 10 u 
 
146 
 
 AMEKICAN-BRITISII CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 of the blockaile, bat that rcasoiiahle time after tlie actual possession 
 must be allowed to determine whether the occupation was such a stable 
 and permanent one as to justify the opening of the port as a port of the 
 United States. Inat until such occu[)ation was so established, New 
 Orleans still remained an eueuij's city as regarded the rights of neutrals 
 to trade there. 
 
 That tiuie must be given after the actual occupation, reasonably suf- 
 ficient to put in force the municipal regulations of the United States, 
 with the apparatus of custom-hoases and courts, through which su<!h 
 municipal regulations were to be enforced; and that until snllicient 
 time had elapsed for that purpose, the belligerent right of blockade con- 
 tinued ; that the blockade of New Orleans was not a blockade "by the 
 siniple fact only," but "by a notification accompanied with thc! fact;"' 
 and such blockade continued within reasonable liaiitation till ended by 
 like public notificatiju. (The Neptune, i Kob., 170.) 
 
 That the time fixed by the Sui)reme Court in the case of the Venice 
 (2 Wall., 'JuD) as the date of the assured possession by the United 
 States, as deteraiining the national character of the inhabitants of that 
 city, (0th May, 1862,) was certainly the earliest date which could prop 
 erly be assigned as that of assured possession by the United States for 
 any purpose. 
 
 That, in fact, the time necessary to establish the permanence and 
 stability of possession, by the capturing belligerent, shouhl fairly and 
 properly be left, within reasonable limits, to his own determination, and 
 that the date of 1st June, 1802, fixed by the President of the United 
 States, by his proclamation of 12th May, (12 Stat, at L., 1203, 1204,) for 
 the termination of the blockade, was within reasonable limits under the 
 rules of international law ; and that that date (1st June) should be cou- 
 sidered the lawful and proper termination of the blockade. 
 
 That, at the date of the capture of the Circassian, the city of New 
 Orleans, though in the actual occupancy of the United States forces, 
 had neither capitulated nor surrendered, but was still an enemy's city, 
 deserted for the time by its garrison, but held only by an insignificant 
 force, and what its chief civic oflicer, still avowing the adherence of the 
 city to the confederate cause, called " the power of brutal force, not by 
 choice or consent of its inhabitants." (See letter of the mayor of New 
 Orleans to Flag-officer Farragut, 4 lleb. IJec, doc. 523, 524 ; also, 2d 
 Wallace, 141 n; and Parton's Butler in New Orleans, 282, 342.) That 
 the military occupation of the city of New Orleans by the United States 
 coi'ld not be extended by construction beyoiul the lines of actual mili- 
 tary occupation, and that the <!ity of New Orleans was not conterminous 
 with the port of New Orleans as established l»y the statutes of the 
 United States, (9 Stat, at L. 458;) but that the port which had beeri 
 blockaded enibraced territory outside the city, and not within the lines 
 of actual military occupation. That such occupation of a portion only 
 
agent's report. 
 
 147 
 
 SSCSSlOIl 
 
 a stable 
 t of the 
 Ml, New 
 ueutiaLs 
 
 i\)ly suf- 
 i States, 
 ich sueh 
 iiiilicieiit 
 atle coii- 
 " by the 
 10 fact;"' 
 iiuled by 
 
 e Ye nice 
 5 United 
 s of that 
 \U\ prop 
 itates for 
 
 pnce and 
 aiiiy and 
 tion, and 
 United 
 12G4,) for 
 nder the 
 d be con- 
 
 y of New 
 es forces, 
 ny's city, 
 gnificant 
 ice of the 
 e, not by 
 r of New 
 ; also, 2d 
 ) That 
 ed States 
 tual mili- 
 erininous 
 Bs of the 
 had been 
 the lines 
 tiou only 
 
 of the part could not be deemed, of itself, a termination of the blockade 
 of the port. 
 
 Tiiat the collection district of which New Orleans was thes(»leportof 
 entry, inclinled the entire extent of the navijjation of the Mississippi 
 Kiver and its tributaries, coverinj? thousaiids of miles of na\ ij^ation, 
 and larjie cities situate<l upon that river and its tributaries, (J Stat, at 
 L.,2r)2; 4 ifl., 480.) That a lar}i;e extent of the country included within 
 this district, and many important ports and towns within it, were still 
 in the undisturbed control and oc(!upancy of the enemy. That the 
 blockade of New Orleans was in effi'ct tiie blockade of the Mississippi 
 Kiver, and that until the United States were in complete and assured 
 possession of all the niDUths oF the river as well as the entire port of 
 New Orleans, the imperfect and i)erhaps transient 0(!(Mipation of the 
 civy of New Orleans was not to be taken as lerminatinj;- the blocl-iule. 
 
 That so far as the Circassian herself and heroHicers were concerned, 
 sailinjj with the direct purpose and destination of violating the bhxtkade, 
 and withor.t knowledge or notice either to them or their captors of any 
 chauftc of occu]iation of New Orleans, such an accidental, technical, and 
 artificial objection to the rightfulness of her (japture sluuld not be al- 
 lowed to change the character of a capture otherwise lawful, and convert 
 it into an unlawful capture, without strict and conclusive i)roof of the 
 facts relied on so to change the character of the capture. 
 
 That, as to the claim of the insurance companies, (No. 444,) they had 
 no standing before the commission in respect of the larger part of the 
 cargo insured by them, the same having been the property of French 
 merchants, not subjectsof H( r Ibitannic ^Majesty. That, by the terms of 
 the treaty, jurisdiction is given to the coinmission only of daiais "'grow- 
 ing out of injuries to t' in'isons and property of IJritish sul>Je('ts." 
 
 That the gist of the iii|ii:r here complained of was tin- wrongful (cap- 
 ture of the Circassian and her car;.;ii, the subsequent condemnation and 
 sale being merely incidents of tin t-apture in thf course of the adjudica- 
 tion by the tribunals of the LTnited States, as to its lawfulness, merely 
 for the puri»ose of determining whether the cai)ture ><'ioiil(l be ultimsiti'ly 
 ado[>ted as the act of the Unite<l States. Th:: , when ciiptured, this part 
 of the cargo was not the property of the subjects of I [er Uritannic Majesty. 
 That the abandonment by the insured to the insurers after <'apture, the 
 acceptance of such abandonment by the insurers, and payment as for a 
 total loss, simply operated as a transfer to tlu' ' surers of the rights of 
 the assured in respect of the (capture; an 1 iiiat the insurers stood 
 merely as subrogated to the rights of the owners at the time ol tln^ cap- 
 ture, and as their equitable assignees. Tliat such transfer by operation 
 of law gave to the insurers as equitable assignees no better standing 
 before the commission than they would have incase of a claim tor any 
 other injuries to the persons or property of individuals not subjects of 
 Her Hritannic Majesty, but who had assigne<I their claim against the 
 United States for such injuries to a British subject. That so far, there- 
 
 I 
 1 I 
 
 
 * i 
 
 ill "ft 
 
 ii'ifj 
 
fl!| 
 
 ! 
 
 
 ,,,. 
 
 1 
 
 M':i 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 |l 
 
 IBji 
 
 i 
 
 ■L 
 
 !j 
 
 
 148 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 T 
 
 fore, as the property of these "French merchants" on board the Circas- 
 sian was concerned, no riglit ot recUiination against the United States 
 under the treaty existed in the claimants. 
 
 The commission (Mi. Commissioner Fra/er dissentinjj) made awards 
 iu favor of all the claimants. To the claimants in No. 432, the sum of 
 $71,428, in No. 433, the snm of $20,450, and in 444 the sum of $133,290. 
 I am advised that these resjvective sums in Nos. 432 and 444 were taken 
 by the commission as the actual proceeds of the sales of the vessel and 
 Cfirgo, respectively, reduced from United States currency at its value at 
 the date of sale to a gold basis, and without the allowance of any in- 
 terest. The award lU No. 444 covered as well the proceeds of the 
 cargo belonging to the French merchants as the portions owned by 
 British subjects. 
 
 Mr. Commissioner Frazer read a dissenting opinion, which will be 
 found iu the Appendix N. 
 
 The schooner Jane Campbell : George Canij'bell, claimant. No. 453. 
 
 This vessel was captured by a vessel of tiie ^^nited States blockading 
 squadron in December, 1801, off the i)ort of Beaufort, N. C. She was 
 taken into the port of New York and there libelled in the United States 
 district court. That court made a decree awarding restitution of the 
 vessel and certifying probaLie cause of capture, but finding upon the 
 evidence that the captors had been guilty of unjustifiable coiduct 
 towai d the crew and cargo and stores of the vessel in the matters here- 
 inafter named, ordered a reference fo prize comniiscioiu'rs to as(!ertain 
 and report to the court the dauuiges sustained in conse<pience of such 
 alleged misconduct. (The case is reported in Blatchford's Prize Cases, 
 107, 130.) Under this order no [)r()ofs were offered by the claimants in 
 the district court, nor any further proceedings hud as to such alleged 
 damages; and no appeal was taken from the decree of the district 
 court. 
 
 The proofs in the prize court were not put in evidence before the com- 
 mission, but the claimant rested the case here on his own deposition 
 taken before the commission. 
 
 Froui the testimony of the claimant himself, it appeared that he was, 
 down to August, lSOl,a resident of Petersburgh, Va. ; that the vessel 
 was of American build and register, and was bought by him in July, 
 18GI, in Washington, N.O., a blockaded port of the enemy. He boughther 
 for the alleged purpose of taking his family from North Carolina to Liver- 
 pool ; and in August, 1801, took her out through the blockade, and sub- 
 sequently caused her to be registered as a British vessel. The district court 
 found., upon the proofs before it, that the vessel when captured was 
 apparently approaching thf blockaded port of Beaufort, N. C, with 
 intention to enter it. The (ilaimant alleged in his memorial, and stated 
 iu his deposition, that he was on a voyage from Liverpool to Havana; 
 that he was compelled hy stress of weather and injuries received to seek 
 
agent's report. 
 
 149 
 
 assistance off the coast of North Carolina, and approached the blockading 
 fleet for that purpose, making known his condition, but his vessel was 
 thereupon seized and sent in for libel. The memorial also alleged, and 
 the prize court found upon the evidence before it, that on the capture of 
 the vessel the claimant, who was on board of her, was, with some of the 
 ship's company, taken from the schooner, placed on board a United 
 States vessel, and carried to Fortress Monroe and there landed, while 
 the vessel, with her captain and the remainder of her cargo, was taken 
 to New York, and that the prize crew, while on board, broke oi)en the 
 hatches and the storeroom and appropriated portions of the cargo and 
 stores. The memorial claimed damages for the detention of the vessel 
 and the injuries to the cargt and stores, £3,260, besides interest. 
 
 The claimant assigned in his memorial, and in his deposition, as the 
 reason of his omission to make proof of his damages in the dist; ct 
 court, and to api)eal to the Supreme Court, that he was informed b;^ the 
 pssistant district attorney of the United States that if he persisted in 
 the prosecution of his claim for damages, the United States would ap- 
 peal from the judgment of restitution rendered by the district court; 
 and that knowing that this course would probably keep his property 
 i.r'cked up for years, and not being in a position to bear such a loss, he 
 took away the vessel and cargo without any further prosecution of his 
 claim for damages. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was contended that the purchase 
 of the vessel by the claimant within a blockaded port of the enemy, 
 she being at the time an enemy's vessel, and the claimant at the time 
 of the purchase an enemy by domicile, and the subsequent taking her 
 out through the blockade, followed by change of domicile of the ownci 
 and of registry of the vessel, did not change the character of the 
 vessel from an enemy to a neutral. That the purchase of a private 
 merchant-ship of the enemy by a neutral in time of war, when made in 
 a neutral port, if uotper se illegal, is always liable to great suspicion, 
 and demands proof of good faith and of payment of full consideration. 
 (3 Phill., GOV., That such sale when made in a blockaded port of the 
 enemy was ab lolutely void ; and that if the facts of this pretended sale 
 had been made to ai)pear in the prize court, the vessel must there have 
 been condemned as enemy's property. That the claimant had full 
 opportunity to make proof and receive an award for his alleged dam- 
 ages in the prize court; and that having voluntarily abandoned the 
 pursuit of his remedy there, he could not now be heard to make recla- 
 mation before the commission. That the reason alleged by him for his 
 omission to prosecute his claim for damages in the prize court, made his 
 case no better. That the law-officer of the United States had an undis- 
 puted right to say to the claimant, as he did in effect : "If you choose to 
 claim damages of tlie United States I shall take an appeal and test the 
 questioi. of the right of condemnation in the appellate court; but if you 
 are willing to take the vessel without claim of damages 1 will waive my 
 
I'll'' 
 
 150 
 
 AMEUICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 right of appeal, and allow you to depart with tlie vessel and cargo." 
 That the elaiiiiant's <al)andoinnent of the right thus given him to n)aku 
 proof in regard to the niiscondiiet of the captors rather thiiu have the 
 question of con<lenination reviewed on ai)peal, was clearly "an acknowl- 
 edgment of the Justice of the sentence." That by the chiimant's on>is- 
 sion to produce before this commission the testimony taken in the j)rize 
 court, he was debarred from alleging that the evidence in that court was 
 insutlicient to sustain the decree certifying probable cause of capture. 
 The commission unanimously disallowed the claim. 
 
 ;i:! 
 
 i ! 
 
 6. Claims for damages by reason of the alleged ttnlairfitl teaming off of 
 vessels from coasts of the ISlates in rebellion by United States vessels of 
 ■war. 
 
 These claims were three in number — that of Benjami'i Whitworth and 
 others, owners of the ship Uoyne, No. 21G; that of Andrew Ewing 
 Byrne and others, owners of the ship Monmouth, No. 315; and that of 
 Matthew Isaac Wilson, owner of the bark Hilja, No. 407. 
 
 The Boyne (No. 210) sailed from Fleetwood, Lancashire, England, 
 on the 25th Jlarch, 1801, with a cargo of coals for Savannah, Georgia. 
 On the 11th May, when near the entrance of the harbor of Charleston, 
 S. C, she was boarded by an officer of the United States steam-frigate 
 Niagara, who made this entry upon her register : 
 
 Warned off the wliole, coast of the South by th« United States steamer Niagara, May 
 11, 18(il. Edward E. Potter, lieutenant, United States Navy. 
 
 In consequence of this warning she abandoned her voyage to Savan- 
 nah, and went to New York, where it was alleged that she disposed of 
 the cargo of coal at a rate much less than it would have commanded in 
 Savannah, and took a homeward freight from New York of much less 
 value than she would have secured from Savannah. In fact, at the date 
 of the warning no .sufficient blockade had been instituted at Savannah 
 or at any other port south of Charleston ; the actual blockade of Sa- 
 vannah not having commenced until the 28th May. The memorial 
 claimed damages by reason of loss on outward cargo, and on return- 
 freight below that which she would have earned from Savannah, and 
 by detention of the vessel, £0,400 13s. Od., besides interest. 
 
 The Monmouth (No. 315) sailed from Liverpool in March, 18G1, with 
 a cargo of salt, under written instructions to proceed to Charleston and 
 deliver vessel and cargo to consignees there ; and if that port should be 
 found blockaded, then to go to Savannah ; and if he failed in getting a 
 cotton freight at either Charleston or Savannah, then to go to St. 
 Stephen, New Brunswick, and load with a cargo of deals for the return 
 voyage. On the 12th May she arrived off the harbor of. Charleston ; 
 
agent's report. 
 
 151 
 
 wiis boanled by an officer of the blockiuliiig vessel Niagara, and the 
 following entry made npon her register: 
 
 Hoartlt'd ; inforiiicil (if the lilndkiiiln ; iiiid wnriiod oft' tlio eoast of all the Southern 
 Htiites by the United States stt'tiinsliip Niajjiii;!, May \'2, IHCil. 
 
 The master tlu-reiipon aban(h)ned his voyage to Charleston and 
 Savannah, and went to St. Stephen, New iJrnnswick, where hedisposed 
 of his cargo of salt and took his retnrn cargo of deals. The memorial 
 (claimed, damages by losses on her <;argo of salt and of retnrn freight, 
 short of what she wonld have received from Savannah ; antl costs, and 
 charges, and delay, to which she was necessarily snbjectetl by her change 
 of destination, £10,372 lOs. Od. 
 
 The Ililja (No. 4()7) sailed from Liverpool on the 2r)th .March, 1801, 
 in ballast, for ^'harleston ; the memorial alleging that «he intended to 
 load, on freight a^ that port or at Savanmih, a return cargo of cotton 
 for Liver[>ool. Sht was boanled by an ollicer of the LTnited States 
 steamship Niagara <»tt" Charleston Harbor, on the iL'th May, and u 
 warning entered npcvn her register, substantially the same as in the 
 case of the iMonmoMth. The memorial alleged that the captain of 
 the Ilil.ja, having an alicnative destination to Savannah, was de- 
 barred from proceeding to that port by this warning; that she there- 
 upon proceeth'd to Pugwash, but gave no information as to her earn- 
 ings by her return freight. Diunages were ?tlaimed to the anu)unt 
 of £0,101 ;5.s'. Id., besides interest — the amount of freight which, it was 
 alleged, the vessel wotild have earned by a return cargo of cotton from 
 Chaileston or Savannah. 
 
 The sailing orders of the Hilja were not put in evidence nor accounted 
 for, though it appeared that she sailed under wiitten orders; nor was 
 any evidence adduced as to her alternative destination to Savannah, 
 except that of the claimant himself, examined on notice, who, after 
 many evasive and contradictory answers on cross-examination as to the 
 destination of the v^jsel, tinally summed u[) his evidence in this regard 
 by saying: " 1 think I mentioned to him verbally that if freights were 
 better at Savannah he was to go there." The claimant also testilied 
 that he had, through Mr. A. E. Byrne, (claimant in No. 315,) had cor- 
 respondence with the British foreign office in respect to this warning 
 ott Of his vessel, and that he had had like corresi»ondence with Her Ma- 
 jesty's consul at Charleston, through Messrs. Kobert Muir & Co., and 
 that there had also been correspondence between IMuir «& Co. and him- 
 self, and between Henderson, the nnister of the vessel, (since dead,) ami 
 himself; but none of this correspondence was either produced or ac- 
 counted for. No proof was made as to the avails of the return freight 
 from Piigwash, except the general statement of the clainuint in his 
 deposition that " the whole voyage brought in a loss:" and on cross- 
 examination the claimant, w^Uen questioned as to his transactions ia 
 connection wi|/U violating the blockade during the war, and furnishing 
 
 Ml 
 
152 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 i ; 
 
 aUl to the confederate government, declined to answer all such ques- 
 tion8. 
 
 It appeared that an actual blockade of the port of Charleston was 
 established by the i)resence of a auffl<!ient blockading force at the dates 
 of the respective warnings of the three vessels. 
 
 The three cases were argued and submitted together. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was contended that the wfirning 
 entered upon the register of these vessels, respectively, so far as appli- 
 cable to any unblockaded ports, was without authoritj^ of the United 
 States, a clear error on the part of the officer giving the warning, insuffi- 
 <;ient to preclude the further voyage of the vessels warned to any un- 
 blockaded port, and had never been adopted or ratified by the United 
 States; that the ca.«e rested on the voluntary abandonment, by the 
 masters of the Monmouth and the Boyne, respectively, of their alterna- 
 tive voyage to Savannah, upon an incorrect warning, unduly given by 
 an unauthorized officer of the United States, and that for such loss no 
 reclamation Iny against the United States. 
 
 In the case of the Uilja, it was maintained on the part of the United 
 States that the proof showed no altenmtive destitmtion to Savannjih : 
 that the vessel was men^ly stopped from entering the blockaded port of 
 Charleston, to which she was destined, and that no loss whatever was 
 shown to have accrued to her, except that caused by her being pre- 
 vented from entering that port, and that no proof was made of actual 
 loss even in this respect; that the non-production, by the claimant Wil- 
 son, of the correspondence with the British foreign office, and with the 
 British consul at Charleston, as well as his own correspondence with 
 his ciiptain, Henderson, and his agents at Charleston, Muir & Co., suffi- 
 ciently indicated that the claimant then put his claim t()r compensation 
 solely on the ground of the illegality or insufficiencry of the blockade of 
 Charleston, and that the pretended alternative destination to Savan- 
 nah was an afterthought, borrowed from the cases of the Monmouth 
 and the Boyne; that his own testimony, on which he rested the case, 
 was upon its face unworthy of credit. 
 
 The counsel for the United States also claimed that in the case of an 
 award of damages in any of these cases, the anticipated earnings by 
 freights from Savannah, at high rates, could not be taken into account 
 as elements of the award. That such anticipated earnings were specu- 
 lative and illusory ; that the evidence showed that the market at Savan- 
 nah, in respect both of sales of the outward cargoes, and of tlie rate of 
 freights, was exceedingly irregular and violent in its fluctuations, and 
 in effect a gaming market. That it could not be assumed that the ves- 
 sels could have secured return cargoes at Savannah in season to leave 
 within the time limited after the establishment of the blockade there; 
 nor that they could have secured such rates of freight as were claimed 
 in the respective cases; and thatthese claims were of substantially the 
 same nature of speculative and uncertain prospective profits, which 
 
AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 153 
 
 were rcjoctcd by the tribunal at Geneva, in the case of tlie clniins for 
 anticipated earnings and profits of captured vessels, claimed before 
 that tribunal. 
 
 The commission in the case of the Boyne, (No. 21G,) unanimously 
 made an award in favor of the claimants for $.'32,553. 
 
 In the case of the Monmouth, (No. 315,) they made an award in favor 
 of the claimants for $40,843; Mr. Commissioner Fra/er dissenting on 
 the question of amount. 
 
 In the case of the Ililja, (No. 407,) the claim was disallowed ; Mr, 
 Commissioner Ourney dissenting. 
 
 On the general question involved in these cases Mr. Commissioner 
 Frazer read an opinion, which will be found in the Appendix O. 
 
 7. Miscellaneous cases. 
 
 In the case of Alfred Raoul Walker, No. 13, the claimant, a minor, 
 by his guardian, alleged that he was born in Charleston, S. C, his father 
 being at the time of his birth a British subject and resident at Cliarleston, 
 as Her Britannic Majesty's vice-consul for that port and ibr the State of 
 South Carolina ; that by the will of Mrs. Laurens, the claimant, in May, 
 1858, became entitled to a legacy of $20,000, to be paidtohim on coming of 
 age, and the interest to be applied to his support and education. That 
 the executors of Mrs. Laurens's will having filed a bill in the court of 
 equity in the State of South Carolina, for the purpose of obtaining the 
 protection of the court in respect to the trusts created by the will, made 
 the claimant a party to the bill, and placed the moneys belonging to the 
 claimant under the will in the receivership and under the control of the 
 court ; and that, under the protection of the court, the moneys so be- 
 longing to the claimant were invested in bonds c*" the Confederate 
 States during the war. That "by reason of such investment for the 
 purposes of carrying on civil war, and by reason of such cjivil war and 
 rebellion, and by the act of the Government of the Ignited States in 
 suppressing the said rebellion and restoring the authority of the Federal 
 Government,'' the claimant's moneys were totally and irrecoverably lost. 
 That the court in question was a tribunal of competent power and juris- 
 diction to direct the investment and charge of such moneys ; and that 
 " the civil war, through the act of the Government of the United States. 
 destroyed the investments." The claimant claimed an award for $20,000, 
 besides interest. 
 
 A demurrer was interposed on the part of the United States to the 
 memorial, specifying, among other grounds, that the claimant was, by 
 the laws of the United States, a citi/en of the United States, and so 
 could have no standing as a British subject under the treaty ; that the 
 alleged wrongs were peri)etrated, if at all, by the pretended courts and 
 authorities of the so-called State of South Carolina, while not acting 
 under or by the authority of the Constitution, laws, or Government of 
 
\mrr 
 
 164 
 
 AMKRICAN-HRITISII CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 ! ! ■■.! 
 
 ¥ 
 4' 
 
 the Uaihi'il Stitis^i, but wliile in re')ollii)ii a;:? liint, tlm LT.iitol Stiitns and 
 at war with tiiom, ami that fur siicli acts thii United Stiiti'S wi'n; not 
 liabU'; that the cliiniant alh'jjti'd that the court of Sontli (Carolina was a 
 court iiavinjj; jiii'isdiction of the siibjeel matter and of the person of the 
 claimant, and e\ereisiii<r sueh Jurisdiction; and tliat the claimant, by 
 his j^uanlian, voluntarily submitted himself to su<;h Jurisdiction; that 
 he did UDt allege the order or decree of the court to have been fraudu- 
 lently made, or its trc^atinent of tlie claimant's property to have been 
 excepti(»nal ; and that for such action of a judicial tribunal, however 
 erroneous, no claim could lie under the treaty. That the alle;;iuion that 
 the civil war, throu;i;h the act of the Government of the United States, 
 "destroyed the investmetits of the claimant," formed uo |;round of 
 claim ajjainst the United States. 
 
 Tiie case was submitted without argument, and the (daim was unani- 
 mously disallowed. 
 
 Ill the (!ase of Edward Alfred Barrett rs. The United States, No. 18, the 
 claimant, resident in England during the war, alleged that in October, 
 18(51, he juirchased for a valuable consideration and was still the pos- 
 sessor and absolute owner of a certain " cotton loan bond" of the Con- 
 federate States of America, by which the Confederate States bound 
 themselves to pay to the bearer £200 sterling, with interest at 7 per cent, 
 per annum, semi annually, on the 1st day of March and the 1st day of 
 September in each year, until redemption of the principal at par. That 
 the (lovernmentof the United States, in the year 1805, "seized all the 
 public assets of the said Confederate States and especially a very large 
 quantity of cotton, hypothecated by the said Confederate States govern- 
 ment for payment of the said cotton loan, and thus ])revented those 
 States from paying their cotton loan bondholders." That in consequence 
 of such seizure by the Government of the United States, the principal 
 of said bond remained unpaid, and no interest had been paid thereon 
 from the 1st day of March, 1865. The claimant claimed damages £200 
 beijiides interest. 
 
 The memorial came to the hands of the agent of the United States on 
 the 14th November, 1871. Though insignilicant in amount, it involved 
 a principal of the highest importance ; and it was understood that it was 
 presented as one of a large number of claims of the same character al- 
 ready in the hands of Her Majesty's agent, and iuvolving claims against 
 the United States on laccount of debts of the late so-called Confederate 
 States to very large amouuts. The agent of the United States, believ- 
 ing the claim to be neither within the letter or spirit of the treaty, and 
 to be one which ought not to have been presented by Her Majesty's 
 government to the commission, immediately sent to the Secretary of 
 State of the United States a copy of the memorial, with the following 
 letter : 
 
 mk 
 
AGENTS UEPORT. 
 
 155 
 
 Ol TirK Ol" TMK AOK.NT OK IIIl'. rMTKM S lATKS 
 
 IJki'okk tiik Mixi;i> Okmmission on Amkimian and Mm iisii Ci.Anm, 
 
 j\o. lO'A l-'ijtrdilli StnrI, ndsliiiinloii, J), ('., yonmhi-r 1.'), 1H71. 
 Siu: 1 liavc till) lioniir to .siiUmit lificwiili a t'Dpy (if tlu) iin'mDrial of Klw.ml Alfred 
 Ilarrctl, yt'HttTdiiy lilcd with tlii' \Va.s!iiii;;tiiii oiiiiiiiiissioii iinilcr tin- Mritisli treaty. 
 
 Yi'i will noli(M) tliat it is liascd Holcly on an alli-f^ftl liability of tlm Uiiitcil StatcH 
 for piiymi'iit of tlu' oDttoii Ii)aii(su-i!iillt"l) of tln^ late (' niff liT.itn StatiM, (m* (talU'il.) 
 It is tli(^ lii'st claim of lliis rliaracttu- wliiidi has Ihmmi iircsiMitnl to tht; coiiiinissioii. 
 
 lii'licviii;; such claiiiiH to bu unliit-ly outside tin; siibiiiissioii iiiadt; by Mid tw(*lftli 
 Hiticlc of the treaty, and that tin; (.iovcrnnKMit of the riiiled States never hiis troii- 
 siMited to Ki\l»niit to arliitiation any ipu-stion of their liability for debtn of this eharao 
 ter, and that it is not. within my prcjvineo to discuss or coiiHi'iit, to thodiscnssion of the 
 ((Ui'stion of such liability beforo tho conimlssion, I be;; to submit tlio cast* to yon for 
 speeitie, instrnetion. 
 
 The questions involved Hceni to pertain mor« directly to tho diplomatic relations of 
 the two coniitries than to any mere (piestion of leyal practice or conatriiction. 
 Very respectfully, your oUediont servant, 
 
 UOH: S. irALK, 
 Jijent and Counarl of thv I'liiled Stalca. 
 lion. riAMir/roN Fisu, 
 
 SiTirtary of Slate. 
 
 1 am advist'd that the Ooverninont of the United States thcreiipou 
 iinmediatel.v, through Mr. Seheuck, the minister of the ITnited States 
 at the court of St. James, protested ayaiiist the presentation of su<.'h i\ 
 chiim as not within the terms of snbmi.ssion by the treaty, and requested 
 of tlie Biitish government that the chiim be withdrawn. This request 
 not having been complied with, tlie ay;e||t of tlie United States, under 
 specilic instructions from the Secretary of State, on the 9th December, 
 IS71, tiled witii tho commission a motion to dismiss the memorial for 
 want of jtirisdiction, as stating no case for a claim against the United 
 States within the intent of the treaty. On this motion the agent of the 
 United States, on the 13th December, 1871, submitted a printed argu- 
 ment, as follows : 
 
 BKFOUK TIIK MIXKl) COMMI.SSION OS AAIKIJICAN AND UKITISH CI.AIM.S. 
 
 Edwakd Alkhkd BAniiiar 
 The UxrriiD Statics. 
 
 >No. 18. 
 
 Argumvnt for tlie United States on motiom to dismiss. 
 
 Ry tho twelfth article of the treaty tho claims a^jfainst thu United States siilMnitted 
 to the adjudication of tho commission are those of subjects of H(U- Britannic Majesty, 
 "arising out of acts committed against the persons or property of subjects of Her Bri- 
 tannic Majesty " during the time limited by that article. 
 
 This language is plain and unambiguous. It limits the claims to those teclinically 
 known as " torts," aud those " torts " committed against tho " persons or property " of 
 the claimants. 
 
 It could not 1)0 contended that the claims so submitted would include a claim on 
 contract against the United States, though founded directly on a contract duly exe- 
 cuted by an authorized ofiQcer of that Govornnieut, and plainly violated by that Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Much less can it be hold to include a contract executed by aud in the name of an in- 
 
 . ^1 'I 
 
 .^■. 
 
 ■ ' : 
 
 ".. .; 
 
 
riiOT— 
 
 166 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 1 , . ' 
 
 r;i 
 
 Hiirn^'-tiittmry or^nni/.nt.ion, in violiitioii of thn CoiiNtitution ami laws of tlio Unitnl 
 StatttH, NtHikiii); tlio NiibvorNion of that Ouvuriiiiiuiit, levying war upon it, and tinully 
 8np|iruHH<>il hy itH power. 
 
 NotwiliiHtandiiiK tlioHnncionH attempt to iliHgiiiHO the true nature of thin claim under 
 an allegation of tliu <le.strnction hy the United StateH, in war, <»f property " liypntin'- 
 cated" hy tins Ho-cal!ed Confederate StateH for the necnrity of their «lehtM, it is nvilly 
 neither more n(»r less than a ehiini to hohl the Unittsd Htaten lialde for tiie debts ot 
 thoHe lately in rehellicni against them, eontracted in the very conrMo of sueli rebellion, 
 in aid of it, and from which it drew its chief support. 
 
 To believe for a moment that the United States ever intended to submit sneh a<|Ui's. 
 tion to arbitration would be, at the same time, to do violence to the language of the 
 treaty, and to falsify the history of that Ciovernmont by imputing to it a pusillanim- 
 ity wholly unwarranted by anything in its past career or present condition. It would 
 be to believe that the United States have delil)erately signilied their willingness, at 
 the award of this commission, to pay debts contracted by their defeated enemies, for 
 the solt* purpose of the tlismemberment of their Government and the destruction of 
 their liberties ; debts held in the deepest abhorrence by tbe unanimous sentiment of 
 their loyal people, and debts, the assumption or payment of which, in any form, by 
 the United States, or any one of their constituent States, has been i)rohibited by solemn 
 constitutional enactment, by that fuiulauiental law to which ill treaties, a j well as all 
 statutes, are subject. 
 
 When the Government and p«!ople of the United States shall acknowledge that in 
 their recent succc^ssful struggle with rebellion they were wholly in the wrong, and the 
 rebels wholly in the right ; when they shall determine to compensate the rebels them- 
 selves for their losses in person and property by the war, to pension their widows nnd 
 orphans, and to repudiate the debt of the Federal Government contracted for the »»</>- 
 presaion of the rebellion ; then, and not till then, will they consider the question of 
 paying the mercenary foreign substyibcrs to the rebel loans, more criminal in their 
 eyes, or at least sharing more of their abhorrence, than any ot' r participants in the 
 gigantic crime. 
 
 The language of the treaty itself is believed to be abundantly specific in exclnding 
 claims of the character of that in ({uestion. If any ambiguity eonld bo found in that 
 language, it would be fully removed by reference to the protocols of conference of the 
 .Joint I^ligh Commissioners, and to facts of universal cogni/ancu in connection with 
 them. 
 
 By the 36th protocol, under the head of "Articles XII to XVII," it appears that the 
 American commissioners, when invited by their British <'olleagnes to include within 
 the terms of the treaty another class of claims by Her Mnjesty's subjects against the 
 United States, declined so to do, saying, " That, in their view, the subject was not 
 enibraced in the scope of the correspondence between Sir Edward Thornton and Mr. 
 Fish under either of the letters of the former ; and that they did not feel justified in 
 entering upon the consideration of any class of claims not contemplated at the time of 
 the creation of tbe present com mission," &c. 
 
 Referring to the correspondence between Sir Edward Thornton and Mr. Fish, named 
 in the protocol, it will be found that the first aiention of or reference to the claims 
 covered by the twelfth article, is contained in the letter of Sir Edward to Mr. Fish, 
 under the date of February 1, 1871, and that iu that letter ho designates them as 
 claims "arising out of acts committed," &c., the same language which was substr 
 quently copied into the treaty, and, with the addition, by w.ay of giving greater point 
 and accuracy, of the further words, " against the persons or property of subjects of 
 Her Britannic Majesty." 
 
 It must bo borne iu mind that at the time of this correspondence, as well as at the 
 time of the conclusion and ratification of the treaty, the Constitution of the United 
 States contained an express prohibition of the assumption or payment of these debts 
 by the United States or by any State. That every officer of the United States, execu- 
 
 ikittrik 
 
the 8up- 
 
 AOENTS UKI'ORT. 
 
 157 
 
 tive, l(•KiMIiltiv(^ ami Jiid'h^iiil, wiis tliii.t IhhiikI by tho Hiit^ri'iiKi Iiiw of tlio liiinl mul by 
 liJM otitli <>t ol)t(M^ to tr<Mit as iittrrly null any |>ri)viMloir of any rn^ity or Htatiitti in <-oii- 
 travt'ntion of that t-onHtitutional prohihition, nniliM' pcnatty of iinpoiMtliiniMit or itH 
 ei|Mival>'nt. That tint t'xi.stfiuto of this oon.ititutional provision was witll known, not 
 only to tin- .S-cn-tary of Statf, tlu!CoinuiiN»iontrH, tho Chief Kxc'untivo, and tho Sunato 
 of the United States, al! (tarties on the part of the Onlted Statos to thu treaty or tu 
 thlH preliminary forrespondence, hut wuh etpially well known to the British minister 
 and to the Itritish lli,>{h ('onimissiomirs. It cannot, therefore, he for a lonment lielieveil 
 that the Ai leriean Seeretary, in his aeeeptanee of the proposition of Sir Ivlward by 
 his letter of Fehrnary It — tho President of the United Statics, in (Ureetin;^ that iieeept- 
 unce— th« Anntriean inenibers of tho Joint Ili^Ii (.'(nnmission in negotiating; and eon- 
 clndin;; the. treaty — the President in ratifying;, or the Senate of the United States in 
 advising and eoiHentinjr to tho sanio — ever intended to eniboily in it aprovisimi wliiuk 
 shonld vi(dali) the fiimlainental law of the nation, or th;it tiie ministers ami coniniia- 
 MionerHof Her Mritanie Maje.sty so understood tliem to intend. 
 
 In case, too, of any possihlo amhignity, it must bo borne in mind that this lan;;naKO 
 first emanated t'roni Her Majesty's minister, and that Ity the .siittled rules of dipl tmatio 
 us well as le^al construction, tho party omi)loyin;r ambijrnons lan<;ua^e is tlebarred 
 from any bemlit of thuambi;;nity. 
 
 Itut tho United States insist that tho lan^ua;re is not ambi;ruous; that it is plain and 
 explicit, and that within it a claim of this eharactia- has no place amon<r tho nnit- 
 ters submitted by the treaty to this commission for its decision. 
 
 The uiidersij^ned is warranted in saying thatr.bo words "arisiufj out of ants commit- 
 ted," were deliberately and intentionally inserted by Sir Kdward in his letter of Int 
 February, rept.'ated by Secretary Fish in his letter of Mil February, and copieil and 
 elaborated by the Joint IliK'i Commissioners in tho twelfth arti<de of tint treaty, for 
 th<; express purpose of excluding all possible claims of tho nature of the debts of the 
 States lately in rebellion, singly or under any attem[)ted and abortive <ni;anization. 
 
 If tho uonuHol for tho United States doomed himself at liberty to discuss the merits 
 of the claim hero ]n'osouted, as within tho jurisdiction of the commission to decide, 
 tho answer to tho claim, on its merits, would bo palpable, solf-snggestinj;-, ami conclu- 
 sive. 
 
 But lie expressly disclaims all intention of such discussion, and asks the dismission 
 of tho claim on tho gronnd spocilicd in his motion. 
 
 ROB: S. HALE, 
 Agent and Counsel of the United iStateH, ifo. 
 
 On the 14th December, 1871, the coininissiou nuule and tiled their 
 decision, unajiiinously dismissing the elaim, as follows : 
 
 Office of thk Mixed Co-mmis.sion on Bitrnsn an-d Amkimcan Claims, 
 
 Uni>kk the Theaty of May H, 1871, 
 
 (f'ashintjton, D. V., December 14, le71. 
 
 Edwakd Alfked Bahhett ) 
 
 r«. >No. 
 
 The United States. > 
 
 18. 
 
 The comnnssion is of opinion that the United States is not liable for tlie payment of 
 debts contracted by the rebel authorities. 
 
 The rebellion was a struggle against the United States for the establislimeut in a por- 
 tion of the country belonging to the Uiuted States of a new state in tho family of 
 nations, and it failed. Persons c«>ntracting with the so-called Confederate States volun- 
 tarily assumed tho risk of such failure and accepted its obligations, subject to the para- 
 mount rights of the parent state by force to crush the rebel organi:^atiou and seize all 
 its assets and property, whether hypothecated by it or not to its creditors. Such bellig- 
 erent right of the United States to seize and hold was uot subordinate to the rights 
 
 •f!ff 
 
 'ft- 
 
 h ;;■■ 
 
 |: 
 
 i' 
 
 n 
 
 (»' 
 
 iy .'. 
 
 4v 
 
 t-f 
 
f^m^ 
 
 H'i) 
 
 158 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 ri 
 
 of creditors of tlin nOn'l oijjuMiziitiori proiittvl by contnict with tlin laltor; ijiid when 
 such stiiziini was iictiially ai!f^(Hi!|ili>iii)il it put an oiid to any claim to tlin j)roiK!rty 
 wliirli tli«' creditor otlicrwisc niij;lit have had. 
 
 We arc therefore of opinion that after huc1> Hnizure the chiiinant had no interest in 
 the i-'operty, and the claim is di.-imi.«s"jd. 
 
 I>. (^OKTI, 
 
 JAS. S. KKAZK.'i, 
 
 KUS.SHLL (illiXKY, 
 
 ('tntimiinioiicrK. 
 
 In view of tlic iUtitude taken by the I>ritish jrovcrnnu'nt upon the 
 preseiitatioi! of tlieelaiin for so caHed indirect (hiinaycs in tlie " Case "of 
 the United States belbre the tril'-...ial ot arbitration at Geneva, and of 
 tlie intense feelinj;- manifested by the J*ritish nation throujiii the press 
 and in Parliament and elsewhere on that subject, [ have deemed 'his 
 casr worthy of speeifie and lull report. The case involved in ])rinci[>le 
 the question of the liability of the United States for the entire debt of 
 the late Uonfederate States. If within the jurisdiction of the commission, 
 h was plain that the United States might, by the decision of the com- 
 uiission, be held liabh^ for so much of that debt as was held at the ter- 
 mination of the war by I5ritish subjects, the amount of which is of course 
 a matter of conjecture nunvly, but whii-h doubtless amounted to many 
 Innnlred millicmsof (lollars. It isimpos.<ible to believethat the (fovern- 
 nient of the Unite<l States could ever have designed to submit the qnes 
 tion of such liability to arbitnitiou ; and it is certain that the people of 
 the United States would never have consented to the submission in any 
 form of uch a question to arbitration, or to tiny mci'sures of which the 
 possible re ult might be to charge them with the paynuMit of the 
 debt of the Confederate States or any part of such (iebt. It is dillicult 
 to i-ee why the presentation of such a claim to the coinniissi(Mi, and the 
 claim made by such presentation that the commission had juiisdi(!tion 
 under the treaty to make an award against the United States on a<;count 
 of this vast debt of their la; » enemies, the payment of which iu any 
 form ha<l been i)rohil)ited l>y constitutional enactment, might not 
 naturally an<l properly have produced among the people of the United 
 States (pdte as intense an excitenu'ut, and quite as earnest ami vigorous 
 demonstrations of hostility to such sulunission as were manifested by 
 the people of (treat Mritaiu in respect of the claims for indirect dam- 
 ages at Cene.a. It is, however, worthy of note that during its pemlency 
 befbie the commit on, the fact of the present.ition of such a claim was 
 iu)t even in the public press or in Congress or in any other manner 
 brought to po;)ular notice, and no angry demonstrations were anywhere 
 uiade in relation to it. 
 
 The disposition of th** case before the commission, both in substance 
 and form, sc^ems to iiave been entirely satisfactory to both nations; and 
 lui analogy may perhaps be noted between t!;, manner in which the 
 conunissiou disposed of this claim, and that subse<piently adopted by 
 
 rv 
 
AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 159 
 
 the tribiinul rtt Guneva iu respect to the claims for the so-called indirect 
 thuna{?es. 
 
 In theeaJi9 of William Adam, (Xo. 72.) the claimant, a r>ritish subject 
 domiciled in England, allc}jfe(' that he was. in 1<S<Jl', Xlw owiici' ol'trcitjun 
 bimda of a railroatl company within tiie United States, anmnnting to 
 ,$.1,(»00 i)ii!U'ipi"ii, with interest, i)a.vabl(^ Italf yearly, at six per cent, per 
 annum, the interest n|)()n whi(;h had been rennlarly i)aid in i-])e(ie up to 
 tlie.Ust December, tS(51. Tliat in the year I.SOL', the Confrnss ot the 
 United States passed a law makinf? paper njoney a lejjal tcndci- without 
 any protection to preexisting contracts; and ;hat immediately after 
 that law the paper money of the United States became deprciriatetl in 
 value, ajid the clain!>nt was thenceforward compelled to receive payment 
 of his interest in such depreciated ciirn'^iicy, and that the bomls them- 
 selves and the prospective interest to become due thereon, had likewise 
 become depreciated in consequence of the same legislation. That the 
 Supreme Uourt of the United States had, in 1871, adjudj^ed the act of 
 18()li valid in its application to i>re-existins' debts. He submitted with 
 his memorial a computation of his los.ses in the premises, and claimed 
 damajfcs $;),;UH), besides interest. A demurrer was interposed to the 
 memorial on behalf of the United States, on the ground that it stated 
 nucase within the jurisdiction of the commission, and no facts .showing 
 any liability for com))ensation to the claimant. 
 
 The commission u'ianimously made an award as follows: 
 
 The conirnissioiiers are of opijiion tliat tlio inattcrs allf{.'cil in the incinoiial do not 
 constitiitu llio basis of i;iiy valid claim ajijainst the Uniti'd Stati-s. The claim is tliere- 
 lorc dimillowed. 
 
 In the case of Joseph W. Koach, No, 1.54, the claim was for the value 
 of thebrij^antine ^ladeiraand hercar<;o, wlsich wasalleo'ed to have been, 
 ou the .'{d October, ISO;?, run into by the (3ly<le, a stean)er transport 
 owiu'd by the United States, and the vessel and her cargo thei'ebysnnk 
 and totally lost. That the coUisicn took place in the course of a law- 
 ful voyage of the Madeira from the port of Saint John's, I'orto IJico, to 
 the i)ort of New York ; and that the Clyde was then upon a voyage for 
 the Government of the United States, and under the eliarg«» (»f (»llicers of 
 that Government. That the collision happcMied entirely through tl e 
 neglect and dt "ault of the otlicers of the (M.vtle. Tho memorial claiujcd 
 damages $1 ^OtJO..")!), besides interest. The proofs tiled sustained the al 
 legations in the memorial as to the loss of the V(>.ss«'l and cargo by the 
 default of the otlicers of the ('lyde, and showed that the matter had bet n 
 investigated by the claims commissijm of the War DepartUK'iit, and a 
 report was made by that commission in January, l.S(»7, assessing the 
 damages of the claimant at $11,373.08, besides inteiest. The only 
 qiu'stion raised in the ca.se was as to the aujount of damagi's to be j I- 
 losved. Tiie commission unanimonsly tiwardcd the clainmnt ^(14,081. 
 
 ■1 
 
 u^?-' 
 
160 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 
 I i 
 
 
 ;i 
 
 Cliiim of William Scott Millar, No. 157. The memorial iu this case 
 alleged that the claimant, a British subject domiciled at New Orleans, 
 was, on the li.lth September, 18(U, the owner of 330 bales of cotton, then 
 worth $223,253. That on that day the cotton was unlawfully seized and 
 taken from his possession by a supervising si)ecial agent of the United 
 States Treasury Department, and was proceeded against for forfeiture 
 to the United States, by libel of information filed in the United States 
 district court for the district of Louisiana. That the claimant appeared 
 in that suit, and claimed restitution of the cotton, but that it was de- 
 taiiu'd till December, 1804, when it was surrendered to him upon the 
 execution of a bond by him with sureties to the United States, condi- 
 tioned to abide the decree of the court upon the libel. That between the 
 date of the seizure and the date of the release the cotton largely depre- 
 ciated iu value, and the claimant was also compelled to pay large sums 
 by way of costs. Damages were claimed by reason of the dei)reeiation 
 in value and the costs paid, $1)0,145, besides interest. 
 
 The proofs showed that the (iottou in question was purchased at 
 points within the confederate military lines in the State of Mississippi, 
 under alleged permits issued by a special agent of the United States 
 Treasury Department, and was seized on its way through those military 
 lines and into the territory held by the United States forces. The dis- 
 trict court dismissed the libel for confiscation with costs. No claim for 
 damages by reason of the seizure appeared to have been interposed by 
 the claimant in that court, and no damages were there awarded him. 
 
 On the part of the claimant it was contended that the de<;ree of ac- 
 quittal by the district court without certificate of probable cause conclu- 
 sively established the seizure as wrongful. That the United States were 
 responsible for tiie seizure as made by an authorized agent of the Treas- 
 ury Department in the line of his duty and under color of acts of Con- 
 gress. Antl that the act of the agent in making the seizure had been 
 expressly adopted by the Government by instituting proceedings for the 
 forfeiture of the proi>erty. The counsel for the claimant cited (lelston 
 i'.-*. White, (3 Wlieat., 24(}, and casus there (iited;) The Appollon, (9 
 Wheat., .302;) Hall rs. Warning, (2 McLean, 332, ami cases there (;ited ;) 
 The Caledonian, (4 Wheat., 100;) Taylor v,i. United States, (3 Mow., 107.) 
 
 On the pai't of the United States it was maintained that the proofs 
 conclusively showed the purchase of the property by the claimant 
 within the enemy's lines, and his attempted transportation of the same 
 througli those lines into the Federal jurisdiction, to have l)een illegal 
 and not warranted by his permits; that the cotton shouhl have been 
 condemiHMl by the district court; that the decree of that <!ourt was not 
 conclusive against the United States ui>on the claim now preferred for 
 damages, and that the commission were entitled to look into the proofs 
 und ailjinii(;ate upon the (piestion of the liability of the United States 
 for damages as an origifnit question; that the claimant might have 
 presented and pros<icuted his claim for damages against the United 
 
AGENTS J{1:poK'T. 
 
 161 
 
 illegal 
 
 States in tlio district court in tJK' action brouj;lit ajjainst liiin for for- 
 t'oituro, and niij;lit thcrr have rocovcrcil liis daniajics it' lawfully entitled 
 to the same; and that until he had exhausted his remedy before the 
 tribunals <»f the United States, he had no standin<j^ to nnUve reelania- 
 tion before the commission. The commission unanimously disallowed 
 the claim. 
 
 Amos JJigland's claim, No. l!ll), was for damages for the detention of 
 the liriiish steamship Tubal C'ain, in the port of New York, from the 
 Sth April to the KJtli Jidy, l.S(>.'J. one hundred days; and damages were 
 claimed, $3.S,.'}78, besides interest. The <tlaimant was a ISritish mer- 
 chant domiciled in the city of Xew York, llecihartered tlii^ Tubal Cain 
 to one 3Iora lor a voyage to Matamoras ria Havana and back to Xew 
 York. She was loaded by the <-harterer, and on the Hth A[)ril, being 
 ready to sail, clearance was refused by the custom-house authorities, and 
 she was seized by the United Stales authorities, the collector of the 
 ])()rt and th<' military commander of the department concurring in the 
 seizure, on the charge that slie, was undertaking to carry on an illicit 
 voyage between New York and the blockaded \nn\s of Texas, and was 
 carrying out contraband of war <lestined for the confederacy, and 
 was also carrying i)assengers engaged in contraband trade with the 
 enemy, on(M)f them being an agent of the UonfiMlerate States govern- 
 ment engaged in the luirchase of munitions of war. Mr. ICdwards 
 IMenepont, of New York, was commissioned by the \Yar Department 
 to examine and leport uj)on the case. On tlui iMIth ^[ay he made his 
 rei)ort, sustaining in substance the chargt s named as to two passengers, 
 IMum and Sutton, whom he found having contraband goods on board 
 intended for the Texas tra<le, and engaged in the service of the enemy ; 
 hut reported that neither the owner or chartcicr of the vessel had 
 knowledge that any of the goods shii)ped were (tontraband of war or 
 were intended for illegal trade. lie further reported that there was 
 reasomible cause for detaining tin; vessel, but recommen«led that the 
 vessel be discharged from (tustody, and the goods be deliveied up to 
 the owners on their application and receipt forthesiime. The reiiort was 
 approved by the Solicitor of the War Department, and the vessel was 
 suri'endered on the 10th .Inly and her (-argo retnrnc«l to the shippers, 
 with the exception of the goods of IMum and Sutton. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was contended that the refusal to 
 clear the vessel, her detention for examination, and the unlading of her 
 cargo for that pnri)ose, were lawful acts; that they were done under the 
 authority of tiie regular custom-house ollicials of New York, and that 
 the fact that those ollicials were aided by the ndlitary authorities in no 
 respect affectted the character of tlu' transaction ; that the facts of the 
 case were such as in a i)rize court would have certainly justilicd the cap- 
 ture as one by " probable cause ' if the vessel had been captured on the 
 high seas and brought into port and libelled as prize; that the same 
 11 II 
 
 > ■ » 
 
 il ■ 
 
 *, 
 
1G2 
 
 AMKIilCAN-BKITlSlI CLAIMS CO.MMISSIOX. 
 
 te 
 
 
 I 'i'l 
 
 if 
 
 if 
 
 • 
 
 ) 
 
 t« 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 J 
 
 1 
 
 3!SSB!ff 
 
 iniiicii)los wore to be a])i)lie(l in the consideration of this case of deten 
 tion, and that no liability existed aj^ainst the United States on account 
 of it. 
 
 The coniniissiou nnaninionsly nuule an award in favor of the claim- 
 ant for $4,800. 1 am advised tliat tiiis award was made in resj»ect only 
 of the detention of the vessel, between the date of ^Ir. I'ierrepont's re 
 port and her linal discharf^fe, the commission holdin<;' that detention un- 
 reasonable. 
 
 In the c;ue of Thomas (Jrant, Xo. 211, the claimant, in addition to his 
 claim for to^^acco, captured in runnin{^ the blockade from Wdmington, 
 before reported, claimed $7,000 dama<;;es for the alleged breaking up of 
 his lawful business as a manufacturerof tobacco by the "territic shelling- 
 of the city of Petersburg," by the United States forces in 18G4 and 180o, 
 "which was so violent at times, during the period of ten months, that 
 no business could be regularly and successfully conducted within the 
 city limits." He also claimed the further sum of $1,44() for his interest 
 in a quantity of tobacco, which he alleged was lost in South Carolina 
 while in the course of transportation to remove it out of the reacli of 
 the Federal Army under Cieneral Sherman. It was i»ot alleged that the 
 loss was caused by tlie United States forces exce[)t as the remote cause 
 of the removal. On demurrer the commission unanimously disallowed 
 the claiu). 
 
 In the case of William Cleary, No. 2-'0, the claimant, among other 
 claims set up in his memorial, daiuuMl $r),000 damages for an alleged 
 >iolent assault, wounding, and ill treatment committed upon him by ii 
 private soldier of the United States Army, at Savannah, in March, 18(m, 
 by which he allege.d tliat his life was endangered and himsc^lf disabled 
 for some nn)nths. No allegation or proof was made connecting any ofli- 
 cer of the United States, or any other person exeei>t the assailant, with 
 the alleged assault. The commission made an award in favor of tlie 
 claimant in respect ot jtroperty taken for tiie use of the United States, 
 but gave nothing on account of the alleged assault. 
 
 In the ease of Sheldon Lewis, No. 287, the claimant alleged that, in 
 March, 1S(J;I, he was the owner of 'he bark Matilda A. Lewis, on wliieli 
 vessel was laden in that month a (piantity of I'owls destined for llavana. 
 That the ollicers dI' the United States refused to permit the vessel to 
 lea\e with the fowls, and took jtossession of them. That subsecjuently 
 the consignee of the ibwls in llavana brought suit against the vessel in 
 the Uniti'd States distiict court for tiie southern distriot of New York 
 for the value of tiie fowls, and recovered judgment for $l,10t), for 
 which amount, with the adtlitional sum of $1)00 costs expeiuled by hiai, 
 the claimant claimed an award. 
 
 It appeared frotn the eviden<',e that, by order of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury of 10th INIay, 18(5;5, ollicers «)f the custom houses of the Unite<i 
 States were directed to refuse clearances for the ex[)ortation of "horses, 
 
AGENT S KKPORT. 
 
 1G3 
 
 nuilea, ami livestock,"' siiul to cause the detention of all animals at- 
 tempted to be so exported. Tliat the I'owis in «|uestion had been shipped 
 by one Glas upon the vessel for Havana ; that the enstoms oHieers in 
 Xew York construed the order of the Secretary of the Treasury as 
 coverinj^ fowls, refusecJ to grant clearance for them, and ordered them 
 to be relanded. The fowls were relanded and delivered to the shipper, 
 and the charterer of the vessel having i)rodueed to (Jlas one of the tri- 
 plicate bills of lading, CJlas signed a memorandum on same, annulling 
 the bill of lading. Meantime (Jlas had procured from the agent of the 
 consignees at New York an advance of ^lOi), on one of the triplicate 
 bills of lading for the fowls. This fact was not disclosed to the charterer 
 when the bill of lading was cancelled by (Has. The consignee subse- 
 quently brought suit against the vessel and recovered on the ground of 
 his advan(!e made to (ilas upon the bill of lading, and that the surren- 
 der of the fowls by the charterer to Glas, and the cancelling of the bill 
 of lading by Glas did not j)rejudice his rights, and that the order pro- 
 hibiting the ex|)ortation of livestock was unlawful, and that if lawful 
 it was not intended to include fowls. (See report of the case Desvernine 
 V. The Bark Matilda A. Lewis, o Ulatch ford's C. C. K., 520 to ."n'J.) lu 
 a like case, snbseciuently brought to the notice of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, and involving the construction of the order of l!)tli May, ISIJ.}, 
 the Secretary held that the order did not cover poultiy. 
 
 On the part of the Tnited States it was contended that llie construc- 
 tion phased by the (Misloni-house olli(;ers ui)on the order of the Secre- 
 tary oi" the Treasury was t.'vidently an unjust and forecil (U)nstru('lion ; 
 that if api>lication had been made at once to the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, the di'cision of the customs-ollicers at Nev.- York wotdd have 
 been overruled, and that the United States were not resi)onsible for the 
 error ol" Judgment of such subordinate ollicers till profX'r resort was 
 had to some resixjusilile and chief olllcer of the Government, whoso 
 decision upon the (pu'stion might bind the Government. Also, that if 
 the Unite<l States were liable for the wrongful acts of tlu^ customs- 
 oflicers, the claimant was in no i)ositiou to maintain this claim ; that 
 tiui charterer of his vessel had wrongfully allowed the fowls to be 
 returned to Glas, the s!iip|)er, on his caueellation of one of the bills of 
 lading, without calling in the others, ui)on one of which the advan(;e 
 of the consignees had alrea<ly been made; that the owner of the vessel 
 had therefore been made liable solely by the default of his charterer, 
 by whose acts certainly the United Stat(vs CDiild not be preju(li(!ed. 
 
 The commission n\ade an award in favor of the claiiuant (ov ><I,S|n : 
 Mr. Commissioner I'ra/.er dissenting. 
 
 Messrs. A. l). Campbtill ^S: Co., (claimants in No. 2!)0, claimed from the 
 United States Aijr),.SSI, beshles interest, the alleged value of a cargo of 
 sugar on board the brig .John Welch, which brig was alleged to have 
 been captured by the privateer .Jell". Davis, and carried into Charleston, 
 S. C, where her cargo was sold, but the proceeds of the claimant's por- 
 
 ' *\ 
 
 ^.^ 
 
 
! . 
 
 164 
 
 AMi;i{iCA\-i5KrnsM claims commission. 
 
 ill 
 
 
 tion of tlio siinu' were hold by tlic con federate jjovenmicnt, lobe refiindcd 
 to the elaimiiiits. The memorial further alleged that, " in the montli ol 
 February, 180"), the ITnited States troops took military ])os.se.ssion of 
 Charleston, S. C, and seized the confederate treasury and all confed- 
 erate property therein, and shortly afterwards seized and took posses- 
 sion of all property, whatsoever or wheresoever, bolonj4in;? to or in the 
 ])ossession, custody or control of the said Confederate States, includiiif; 
 the proceeds of the car^io above referred to." Tlie United States inter- 
 ])oseda demurrer to the memorial. On the argument of the demurrer, 
 Her ^Majesty's counsel, on behalf of the claimant, urged that it was pos- 
 sible for the clainiants, under the alleg^ations of the petition, to make 
 out a case of property taken by the United States, " by shov.Mig that the 
 proceeds of their sugar were kept separate and distinct from the funds 
 of the confederacy, and marked or noted as theirs, and thus remain, 
 ing in specie werecai)tured." That in su(;h case they might be entitled 
 to recover. On this giound the demurrer \yas overruled by the (torn- 
 mission. Subsequentl.v the claimants having failed to make any prool" 
 of such capture of their property in specie, and appropriation of it by 
 the United States, tlu' claim was unanimously disallowed. 
 
 The case of liarron, Forbes & Co., No. .')14. In this case the claim- 
 ants alleged that in tiie year 184.") one .Vndres Castillero, a .Mexican 
 citizen, became the owner, under the mining laws of ^NFexico, of a valu- 
 able (piicksilver mine in Calnornia, then a part of the ^Fexican territory, 
 since known as the New Almaden mine. That on the subse(iuent ac- 
 fpiisition of California by the United States they were notilieil of Cas- 
 tillero's title. Tliat in 18Ki and 1817 the claimants duly succeeded to 
 the title of Castillero. That by the treaty of Guadalupe- Hidalgo, 
 between the United States and .Mexico, by which treat.v Mexico sur 
 rendered California to the Tnited States, the faith of the United States 
 was i)ledged that property of every kind belonging to ^Mexicans should 
 be " inviolably respected." That in ^farch, 18.")1, the Congress of the 
 United States passed a law which in effect proceeded on the assumi)- 
 tion that all unoccupied land in California was public property, and which 
 allowed proof to be taken by allegedownersof thetitles before commission 
 ers appointed for that purpose, with the right of ai)peal to the United 
 States courts, and linally tothe Supreme Court of the United States; thus 
 casting upon the claimants oner<ms burdens in the establishment of 
 their lawful title. That this act was, in etVect, a confiscation in favor of 
 the United States of all landed i)roperty in California, subject only to 
 its being averted by such proofs; and was, " in its spirit and effect, a 
 violation of the rights of pr()i)erty, and an infraction of the true intent 
 and meaning of the said treaty." That the claimants filed their claim 
 before the commissioners in California on the 30th September, ^S.'j^, and 
 that those commissioners, on the Sth January, ]8."»(», afhrnied the claim 
 of the clainjants as to a i)ortion of the property, but rejected it as to 
 the remainder, on the ground that their title under the alleged grant, as 
 
AcJKNTs wr.rnirr. 
 
 k;.') 
 
 to the pioiu'ity ill respect ol' wliicli theirdaiin wiis rrJ('('tetl,\Vii.s iiu'ii(>;it« 
 and imperfect at the date of the treaty of (;iia(laliipelIi(lal;,'o. Tiiat 
 tlie United States appeah'd from the (h'cision of the (•oiniiiissioners to a 
 tribunal, composed of the eiiciiit and district Jiid^M's of tlie I'nited 
 States sittinpf in California, nnder the statute; which tribunal, in 1857, 
 issued an injunction restraining? the claimants from further worUinj*' the 
 mine until the further order of the court. That this tribunal linally,on 
 thcl.Sth .January, ISOl, rendered a decree substantially <*onlirmin,y: tho 
 dc(Msi()n of the ori{>inal commissioners, estai)lishin;;' the title of the. 
 claimants to a part of thi^ property and rejecting it as to a i»art. That 
 from this judi^uient both the claimants and the United States appealed 
 to the Supreme Court of the United States; which court, in the year 
 1803, rendered a final jud<;nient reversin;;- that part ol" the decree whidi 
 established claimants' title to ai)ortion of the j)roperty, and dismissinj>" 
 claimants' ai>peal as to the other portion of the decree, and remandin;^: 
 the cause with direction to dismiss the entire petition. The report o( 
 the case, in the Supreme Court, is found in the second vohune of lilack's 
 Reports, \r,\go 17, under the title of "The United States rn, Castillero." 
 The memorial disclaimed all imputatitui of intentional wron<x by tho 
 Suprenu' Court of the United States, but alU'^ed that their linal 
 Judgment was erroneous; and further allej^ed that, immediately alter 
 the decision of the Supreme Court, an order was issued by tlu^ President 
 of the United States, to the United States marshal for California, di- 
 recting;" that the memorialists bo ejected trom their property, and that 
 it be placed in the possession of an a^^cnt of the United States. That, 
 •' whili' thus uuiler pressure and duress, and threatened with eviction 
 from their property," by the United States, the claimants ;;ave a (piit- 
 daim of their interest in the entire property to a Pennsylvania corpora- 
 tion — tlu' (Quicksilver IMinin;;' Comjjany — receiving;- for this conveyance 
 the sum of 81J'">0,(H)(>, and that their j;rantees had since remained in 
 possession ol" the mine, " undisturbed by anyclaimof thii United Slites;" 
 and had received, and still continiu'd to enjoy, a nncnue o[' aljout 
 ><I,(K)(), ()!>;) per annum from tin* mine. It als;) ane.i;i'il various acts of 
 uidairness and oppression i)y the attiniieys, aij'ents, and ollicers of the 
 United States durin,n" tlu! iKMidency of the litination in tiie lowiu' courts, 
 before the final appeal to the Supreme (Jourt. Tin* claimants (;laimed 
 an award for about >5l<),(i;)i»,o:>l), besjdi's interest. A dt^mur^er was in- 
 terposed to t!ie m('ai)ria!, on ln'half of the United Stat.'S, on the follow- 
 in;; grounds : 
 
 1. TIi(( Hiiid nu'imtrial Kots firtli no icfs cicumittcil njiinst the propi'ity of tle'cl:iiiii- 
 aiits witliiii tlic tiniii limited by flu- treaty fnr wliicli the I'liileil Slates are res|M>iisilile, 
 or on account 111' wliich reclamatiiiii lit's ill t'aviir ol" the ciainiants against the Tnitt'd 
 States. 
 
 ii. Tlio a]h';;ations in the nieniorial of tiie :ille;;-ed injuries to llii" clainiant.'s' ri^iits by 
 tlio piisHam' of tia! hiw of ltd Mardi, l"^.'tl. as aliejied in |iaraj;ia|»li 1.") of the memorial ; 
 and Ity the alleged wron;;ful and oppressive acts of tlu! I'nitcil States ami of their 
 oHiccrs and ay;cntH in their oitpot^ition to llie allowancti of tho clainnuits bofort) the 
 
 rM 
 
 'K,' 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 1 
 
!5 I I: 
 
 IGC 
 
 .\Mi:i«'I('AN-liJ;iTlSlI CLAIMS COAI MISSION. 
 
 It ■, 
 
 MEI" 
 
 "lie 
 
 iti 
 ill I 
 
 ';! 
 
 roiiiiiiissidiicis, ,is set Inrlli in ii,iiii;;riiiili "Jl' of tlir inrmoiiiil ; liy flii' ii|)|»i';il illid otliiT 
 iilicjicd iiiijiist anil i)j»|in'S,s»vt! proci-i'dinKs net forth in piuiifiniph '-11, iunl by Mk; pro- 
 cct'ilinf^s ."ft Ciiitli in pai'ii;;rii]ilis 'J'i, 'JII, "Jl, '2{t, 27, 'J^, 'i!>, :>(•, :U, and -V-i, .show all ofsaiil 
 transactionH to have taken plate luil'orc tin; 1:5th day .'f April, ISil ; and thcichy the 
 .said transactions nrc not. tin; subjects of icclaniation bi T. "> this coinmission. 
 
 :•. The decision of the Snprt'nK! Conit of thu I'liitcfd Staten 'ipon the claims of the 
 nienioiiali.sts in the year r-'<i;>, as set forth in para;;nvplis :!:5, M, ;{.">, and :>»(, of tlie 
 iiicniorial, and th(! Mll<;j;ed nets of the Tresident of th(- United Sititcs in execution (d° 
 the Jiid^'nient of saiil court, as N<t forth in itara;;raph '.i7, <lo not c-onsfitnte 'in act or 
 acts aj;;aiust the persons or property of subjects of ller Ibitannic Majesty within \\u' 
 provisionsof the twelfth article of the treaty, by occasion of which reehiniation lies 
 against the I'uiti'd States. 
 
 4. The only acts alle^^ed in the memorial as occurring within the tinu; limited by the 
 treaty an^ the Judfjnumt of tin; Supreme Court of the I'uited States upon a cau.se duly 
 aiul lawfully jiendiug before tluun, and (he juoceedings in due course of law for the 
 eidorc»Mueut of execMilion upon tius said JudgmtMit ; the nu-morial distinctly nejjativin^ 
 any alle;;ati(m of frauil or willful injustice in the said court, no reclauuiti<)u lies o;i be- 
 Inilfof the (■laimauts before this commission by reason ot su(di Jud<;nuuit, or the lawful 
 pro(!<!edin;;s in execution thereof. This (ioiniuissiou has no Jurisdi(!tion ti> review the 
 Judji;ments of the rej^ularly-coustituted Jiulicial tribunals of the I'nited States or of 
 (iJreiit Britain, at least in the absence of iille<;ati»uis of fraud, c(uruption, or willful or 
 intent ioiuil in just ice or injury. 
 
 r>. The memorial shows (i»ara;;raph WJ) that the clainuiuts or their predeiessms, be- 
 fore eviction from tholrsuld juojierty umler the said Jud^juu-nt, voluntarily sold and 
 conveyed to another jiarty, to wit, the Quicksilver Mining Company, all their rifjlits in 
 and to the premises in <|uestion ; and that their said <>;rantues have since remained in 
 uiulisturbed pos.se.ssiou of the property in ([uestiou. The (daiinants, therefore, app<!ar 
 to have never been disturbed in the po.ssl^ssion of their said alleged i)roperty ; and no 
 injury is shown to them tu' their ri<;hts, on account of which reclamUion lies against 
 the I'liitcd States. 
 
 (i. Xo reclamation lies on behalf of the claimants against the Uuiteil States on ac- 
 c<uuit <d"auy allegi>il infraction by the United States of tlie provisions of the treaty of 
 Ciuadalni)e. Hidalgo, the i>rovisiouH of that treaty i»rotecting the rights of i»i<>perty 
 only of Mexican.^, citizens of tin; republic of Mexico, and not of subjiicts of Her Hritan- 
 nic Majesty. 
 
 7. The allegatiims in the memorial do not show any infraction by tlie United States 
 of the provisions of the treaty of (inatlalupe Iliilalgo. 
 
 ^. Thi> .-illegatious in the memorial show m> infraction by the United States upon any 
 rights of the claimants ov their predecessors under tht^ law of nations. 
 
 '.>. The allegatitms in the nuuuorial show a case simply of adjudication by thu regular 
 Judicial tiibunals of the United States having jurisdiction of the subject-matter, ami of 
 the persons of the parties, coiHcrning property lying within the limits of the United 
 Statts, witluuit fraud, corruption, oppression, or willful injustice. Such adjudicatiiui iw 
 not reviewable by this commission, and the parties to the same have no standing for 
 rcdanuititm against the United States. 
 
 10. Tliit allegations in the memorial fail to show the clainuiuts Itritish subjects, or 
 entitled to a standing as such before this ciunmission. 
 
 11. 'i'he allegations in the memiuial fail to show the lueseut claimants to have sm- 
 cecd^-d to any alleged tith- ol Andres Castillero in or to the property in ipu'stion, or to 
 any title of the origimil firm, fo-called, of liarron, Forbes & Co., to the said property. 
 
 Vi. The allegations in the nn-morial fail to show any title in Andres Ciistillero, the 
 iilh'gc<I source of title in the clainuiuts in or to the premises in rpu'stiou. 
 
 It). The allegations in (hu nu-morial fail to impeach the Judgment of thu Supreme 
 Court of the United States u))on the said cast- piuiding before them, or to show said 
 Jndgnu'Ut in any respect erroneous. 
 
.\(i"',\TS KKI'OKT. 
 
 i<;7 
 
 Oil tlic iir;4inii<'iit it \v;i,s contriMUMl, on the part of tlu^ United States : 
 
 1. That all tlic alli'^'atioiis in the nicinorial toncliinjj tlie nnjiist action 
 of tlH> Tnited Slates by its statutes ami lej-al proceed in ins ])rior to the 
 I.'ilh April, ISIil, were ontside the Jurisdiction of the commission as es- 
 tablished b.> th(^ treaty; and if tlie United States «)r their authorized 
 ii<;cnts had been ^'nilty of any Nvron<i: in these respects, siu;h a wron^ 
 was not within the jurisdiction of the commission. 
 
 '2. That the only act of the United States or any of their oHicers 
 alh'jyed in the niemorial to have been committed within the treaty time, 
 is the adJiidi(ration by tlu^ Supreme roiirt of a case re<;iilarly pendiiif'' 
 before it on appeal by both parties (roin an inferior tribunal. That this 
 decision is in express terms admitted by the memorial to haves been 
 lioiK^stly rendered without (corruption or partiiility. Tiiat such a(!tion 
 of the court is not an act (iommitted a;jainst the persons or i)rop(uty of 
 subjects of Her IJritannic Majesty, within the meaninjjf of the twelfth 
 arti<;le of thc! treaty. 
 
 .'5. That the claimants wen* never, within the treaty time, disturbed 
 ill their possession of the property whitdi they claim, or evicted there- 
 liom. That at the conclusion of the litij^ation they voluntarily ]»arted 
 with all their pretended title to thepn>perty, and surrendered its posses- 
 sion to their j^rantees, who have since remained in undistuilu'd posses- 
 sion. 
 
 1. That thc claimants have no standing; to claim for any allejfcd 
 infraction l»y the United States of the provisions of the treaty 
 of (luadalupellidalfro. That that treaty provided only for the protec- 
 tion of the rififhts »)f property of ^r«'.\i(!ans ; and that the vindi<!ation of 
 the rijfhts of i\[e.\ico antl her citizens umb-r that treaty does not lie 
 with the Dritish {government, and is not a subject submitted to the d(!- 
 cision of this commission. 
 
 r>. That under the rules of international law no lirouiid ctf reclama- 
 tion by (Jreat liritain aj^ainst the Unitetl States, (Ui behalf of these her 
 allejjed subje<!ts, appears from the memorial. They became i)aities lit- 
 i^'ant before the Suiueme Court, a Judicial tribunal of the United States, 
 in respect of lands lyin<;' within the United States, and in a casein 
 which the court had unquestioned Jurisdiction. Their ri^ijhts wre, as 
 they themselves admit, honestly and fairly, but, (as they allej^e,) erro- 
 neously adjudicated there. Without awaitin;;- eviction from the prem- 
 ises, they voluntarily parted with their entire claim to the lands, min- 
 ing privilejjes, and all enjoyments and protits of the same ; that if their 
 {jrantees liad been evicted from possession, the claimants corld not be 
 the partie.s to claim redress, haviii}? voluntarily surremlered .ill their 
 ri«;hts; but their }?rantees had not been evicted ; the whole estate with 
 its vast revenues had continued to be enjoyed by the parties to whose 
 enjoyment the claimants voluntarily ce«led it. 
 
 On the part of thc claimants it was insisted by Her ^fajesty's counsel 
 that the annulling of the title of the claimants by the decree of thc 
 
 tm 
 

 m1 
 
 '1 
 
 u. 
 
 ir;,s 
 
 AMKKICAN-nUITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 Siiprciiic Court in ISO.}, and tlic iliioction by tlio I'lvsident of tin* United 
 States to the Knited States inaislial in Caliloinia to expel the (tlainiants 
 troui Iheir pio])erty, constituted acts aj;ainst the ja-operty of IJritish sid) 
 Je<'ls, Ininf^in;;' them within tin; Jmisdicftion of the conmiission. That 
 th(^ conveyance by (lie claimants to tln-ir {grantees was a conveyance 
 nnder dnre.ss ol' theses acts, and did not dischai};(! the liability of the 
 United States, except so far as the anionnt received by the claimants 
 ii'om their j«rantees as pnrchase money nu^iht. j^o to reduce the amount 
 of their loss. That it was within the Jurisdiction of the comndssion to 
 review the JudiiUK'nt of the Supr<'nu' Court, antl if found erroneous to 
 award compensation to the claimants lor their losses by occasion of ii. 
 Jh'r ^lajesty's counsel cit«'d Ctdro hcicrhn fiitcyndchnial., vol. 1, v. 0, §§ 
 LMt(J, liOL', 7!»7, pa<,re .'I'.H ; Dr Friicr Droit ik Xaiiirc ct dcx (iciis, vol. L', \k 
 U; liurlatuaqui Droit dc Mature ct (hn (Ii'hh^\u\. — , p. o, c. 1 ; IMiillimoic, 
 vol. 1, § KiH; liutherforth, v(tl. L', book L', c. !>, v^§ IL', l.*5, 1!); .Manning's 
 Law of Nations, .'{S;{ ; Lawrence's Wheaton, (JT.J, 071, (»70 to OSi' ; llal 
 leek's hit. Law, §§ !."», 10 ; Htoi-y's Conllict of L iws, §§ ."JDl, r»:)2. 
 The commission nnanimously disallowed the claim. 
 
 (icorj-e JI. and .James \V. 15. Money, No. '.V2\. The memorial in this 
 case alleji'ed, in effect, that the I'laimaids wert^ tln^ owners of certain 
 shares in the I'atik of Louisiana, at New (Orleans, which shares paid 
 larf>e dividends .p to the year ISlil ; that at the close of that yeai'. 
 "in j'onscipience <jf the war in America between the Northern and 
 Southern States, and of the occupation of New Orleans and of the 
 bank by (leneral JJutlei', the bank ceased to i)ay any dividend <»r bonus," 
 and the claimants have never since been paid any dividends: 
 that at the time, of the cessation of the dividends the shares were 
 worth $.'51,L'(l(), but that since that date they had been substantial!- 
 valueless. The claimants claimed >';).">,7l!0, besides interest. On demur 
 rer by the United Stiites, the claim was unanimously disallowed. 
 
 William IJ. Ilodi^es, No. .').'')l. This claimant, by his memorial, stated 
 seven «listinct claims a,uninst the United States, upon which he claimed 
 iiwards to the amount of •'::«1, 17 1,1.">, besides interest. 
 
 L For 200 bales of cotton alle;;'ed to have been owmumI by the 
 clainmnt in .Inly, iSOt, at Uort Adams, Mississipju. This cotton 
 was allej;ed to have been seized l)y the United States military 
 IbrccH at Uort A(hims. in Au,u,'ust, LSOl, and 178 bales of it sent 
 to New Orleans; tln^ remainin<;' L'li bales h(» allej;ed were carried 
 oil' by the teamsters who lleil fearin;;' that their teams, iis well as the 
 cotton, would be seized by the United States otlicers. The cotton 
 brou.uht to New Oilcans was, on its arrival, turned over with other cot- 
 ton by (leneral Caid)y to Ii. F. l-'landers, a Treasury ayent of the United 
 States. The clainnint brou<>ht suit ajjainst Flanders in a LDuisianii 
 court to recover the cotton, which suit was afterwards dis(!ontinued 
 with other like suits brought by other clainuuits of cotton against 
 
AdKNI'S IMM'OUT 
 
 u;i) 
 
 FliiiuU'is, oil a slipuliitioi! lor Um! tlclivt'iv of the cotton to tin- respect- 
 ive claimants, acconlin;;' to their sliares, as stipulated between them- 
 selvos, by wliicli stijniiation IIo(Ij,m's was j'lititled to IJU bales. Ho 
 clainiod <laiiia;;es for the- TS bales .vhich he fail"(l to receive, anil for 
 ilepreciation ol" price on the 122 bales re(!eiveil by him, and lor le<j;al ex- 
 [tenses incurred, to the amount of >(1()(»,S,"»U, besides inti-rcst. 
 
 2. The se<'ond claim was lor *' hospital taxes" alle;,'ed to have Iteen 
 paid by tlu^ claimant to the military authorities at New Orleans nnder an 
 order of MaJorCrcneral iJaiiks, then in command theic, retpiiriiij;- that 
 all cotton cominj;' to New Orleans shonid pay a tax of •*."» per bale; 
 siifiar, ^l per hoj;shead, i\:i*., tS:i*. The claimant alle,y,iMl that he paid 
 said taxes nmlcr protest to tin' amount of >!20,1>L'l, lor which amount, 
 with interest, he claimed daina;;es. 
 
 3. Thc! third claim was for 1,<»IK) bales of cotton allej;'«'d to have been 
 partly destroyed and partly carried oil" by the military forces of the 
 United States, ni'ar Alexandria, La., in .March, bSlii, for which he 
 claimed 8i2."),(M(), besides interest. 
 
 4. Thc fourth claim was for a quantity of cotton near IVarl Jiiver, 
 Mississippi, which he alle<;ed was, " by the ne^letit and ineHiciency of the 
 naval an<l military ollicers in command of the district, entirely and 
 totally lost to your memorialist,*' and for which he claimed i^22i,VM), 
 besides interest. 
 
 .">. The lilth claim was for a (luantity of sujiar and molasses, alleged 
 to have been stored by the memorialist in .March, 1804, upon OldlJiver, 
 ill Point Coupee, Louisiana. The claimant allej-cd that he .sent a ves.sel 
 ill ]March, I.SIII, to remove tiiis su<;ar and molasses, but that the vessel 
 was prevented by thc ITnitcd States j^un-boat licet from landiii*;' and 
 takiiiii' on board the su^iar and molasses, and that in ciMisequence tlio 
 sufjar and molasses '• were entirely lost to your memorialist."' For this 
 lie claimed 8;5r», 1 7.1, besides interest. 
 
 0. The sixth claim was for a quantity of siij^ar, alle/^cd to have been 
 l»nrchased in March, 1S<»!, by the claimant, from one Thorne, a resident 
 of Saint ^lartin's l»ari>*h, La., where tin; su^iH' was situated. The 
 claimant alle<fcd that In^ hired a United States transport from the 
 quartermaster of the United States Army, to w lioin he paid the sum of 
 *3,()0(), to brin}>' out the suj-ar from the [dantation, where it was stored, 
 to IJrashear City, La., to be thence transported to New Orleans. That 
 <St hofjsheads of the.'JOO purchased weri^ brou{>lit out by said transport to 
 Drashear (!ity, where it was .seized by the L'nited States authorities, 
 and libelled in thc L'^nited States district court, but .said libel was dis- 
 missed and the sujjar surrendered. The United States authorities, 
 however, prohibited thc transport which the claimant Inul hired from 
 returiung for the. remaimler of thc su<jfar; and, in consequence of such 
 refusal, he allej^ed that the siij>ar was shortly afterwards destroyed by 
 confederate scouts. For his los.ses in this regard, he claimed i?81,.1iGr), 
 besides interest. 
 
-w^ 
 
 
 170 
 
 AMKIMCAN-MKITISII CLAIMS COMMISSHiN. 
 
 m 
 
 ! • j 
 
 J 
 
 ,:.'' 
 
 iff 
 
 7. The sfvciitli rlairn \v:is lor a ljii<;(^ <|iiimti(.v of cotton allryci' lo 
 liavr lu'cii |mr«lias»'(l by tiMXflaiiiiaiit in tin' Slates of lionisiana and 
 IMiMsissippi, 1,000 btlos of \vlii«'li he alli'K»'<l to liavci luu-n (IcstroytMl by 
 troops of t\w Tnitcd States, and tlic remainder to inivc been lost iind 
 dfstro.vcd tliron;;ii \\\v nt'jjllfjjj'nct' an<l dcfiiidt of tin' Fnitcd States 
 anthorities. ITinler this claim lie claimed an award for )i'riSO,0(H), be 
 sides interest. 
 
 Dnrinj; all the tiaiisaetions in qnestion the (claimant was domiciled 
 in New Orleans. 
 
 The (pu'stions arisinj; in the case were, to a lar<;<^ extent, (piestions 
 of filet, the reciipilnliUion of which In-re would be iinprolitable. In 
 re;;ar«l to most of the property set forth in claims 1, ;{, 4, ."», (i, and 7, 
 it wiis contended by the United Stiites that the claimant's title was in 
 valid, as obtained by uidawful purchases from enemies of the United 
 States of property within the enemy's country, in violation of the non- 
 intercourse statutes of the United States, and of tlni fjfcneral laws of 
 war. The permits under which most of this property was alle.yed to 
 have been pnrchasetl were also claimed by the United States to have 
 been irrejjfular, collusive, and frau<lulent, issued in violation of law, and 
 jjivinjjf to the claimant no ri};ht to trade within the enemy's country. 
 
 In rej^jard to the (;laim for payment of alleged il!e;^al taxes, beinji' the 
 claimant's second clainj, it was conteuiled on the part of the U'nited 
 States that the tax was a lawful one, imposed by the commandin<>- olli- 
 cer at New Orleans, while that laty was {•■()verned solely by martial law. 
 as a condition lor the carryiuj; on of trade in that city ; and its i»rocceds 
 properly applied to the relief of the poor of the city, with whoso care 
 the military authorities w<'re of necessity cluuf^ed. That it was a tax 
 imposed upon all persons tradin-j^ in the city without dis(!rimimition, and 
 voluntarily ]>aid by the <*laimant in (tommon with all other persons in like 
 situation in Isew Orleans. Various other questions in rej»ar<l to all the 
 claims were r lised and discussed by the respiuitive counsel, but thoy 
 were nu»inl>, such as relate oidy to tin; special circumstances of the case 
 aud the «juestions of fact involved in the evidence in relation to them. 
 
 The commission made an award in favor of the claimant for $34,150, 
 Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting. I am advised that this award 
 was made entirely in respect of the claimant's lirst claim above recited, 
 and of the amount paid by the claimant to the United States (pnirter- 
 master for the use of the transport, as set forth in the sixth claim. 
 
 In the case of I'etcr Maxwell, No. 385, the memorial alleged that the 
 claimant, during the entire war, was a resident of Liverpool. That in 
 the year 1802 proceedings were instituted in the United States court 
 for the district of Kansas for the confiscation of four lots of land 
 situated in the city of Leavenworth, Kans., a State not in rebellion, on 
 the alleged ground that the clainumt was a rebel in arms against the 
 United States. The only notice of the proceetlings to the defendant 
 
AfiKXTS UKPOUT. 
 
 171 
 
 was ii coiLstnictivi' iiotict! by iMiblicatioii |misiiiint to tlii! stiitiitc. No 
 iippoariincc l)i>iii;>' had by tlio now claiiiiaiit, a (Irci'cr of <'oiilisratioii oj' 
 two of tho lotM passed by (Icl'aidt. As to the oilier two, tlu' liltcl was 
 dismisscMl. 
 
 The proofs before the eoinmissioii clearly showed that the alIe;4ations 
 in the libel as to the <;lainiaiit beiii;,' eii^a;ced iti the rebi'lliini a;r:iinHt 
 tlie United Stat«'s were mil'oaiMled. 
 
 The coiiiinissioii made aiMiward in favor oi' the elaiinant for !i!«l,7S2. 
 
 llailey & Leethaui, clainiants, No. .•SO. The elainiants wi're the 
 owners of theliritish steamship Labiian, which, on theotli wf November, 
 ISOl*, wa.s in the port of New York laden with a carjjo of nuMchandise 
 destined f.u jiatamoras. On tliat day her master ju'esented the mani- 
 fest to the proper olVicerof tin' cnstom-honse at New York for clearance, 
 but snch (ileaiance was rcfnsj'd, and the refnsal continued np to llu^ l.Wli 
 oC December, lS(»i>, on which day it was y;ianted. Tlu^ njt-morial alle;i,fed 
 that this detention was by ri-ason of instru(!tions receivi'd by the cus- 
 tom-honso oHicers from the proper authorities of the I'nited States to 
 detain the Labnan, in conimon with other vessels of {ijreat spe«<l destined 
 for ports in the (Inlf of ^Mexico, to prevent the transmission of informa- 
 tion relative to the departnn' or ]»roi)osed departure oi' a military 
 expedition llttcd out by the authority of the said United States. Tho 
 ineniorial claimed dama.ijes for the <lelention A')S,<K)l>, beln;; at the rate- 
 of $1,(KK) per day, the nuMuorial alle^in;; that o!i a former soizuro and 
 detention of the same vessel, trom February to May, ISOi*, when libelled 
 as prize, this rate of <!omi)ensation tor the iletention had been awarded 
 to the owners by the districtt court of the I'nited States. 
 
 On the part of the United States it was contended Wnd the detention 
 of the Labnan, under the (arcnmstances alleged in the memorial, was 
 within the legitimate and recognized powers of tin' United States; 
 that it was no infringement upon the rules of international law or 
 upon any treaty stii)ulations between the United States and (Ireat 
 IJritain, and that it gave no right of reclamation in favor of the 
 clainmnts against the United States; that the right of self-iuotec- 
 tion, by temporarily refusing <*learanee to vessels through which in- 
 fornmtion of great imiuirtance in regard to military movemei'ts is likely 
 to reach the enemy, must be regarded as of necessity i)ermissible to a 
 government engaged in war; that at the time of this detention im- 
 portant military movements then in progress in connection witii the 
 occupation of New Orleans by the Federal forces, including the di.s' 
 patch of General Banks, with large re-enforcements, to supersede General 
 Hutler in the command there, were in progress, and made it of the nti.iost 
 importance that these movements shoidd be carefully kept secret from 
 the rebels; that the detention of the Labuan was not by any discrimi- 
 nation against her as a IJritish vessel, or against British vessels as such. 
 All vessels capable of such a rate of speed as to make their departure 
 
7-> 
 
 172 
 
 A.Mi:Ki('A\-IUtlTlS!l CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 Ji. 
 
 fii 
 
 III 
 
 dan ;;•«,' roll;- in this ie<;anl were detained alike. That no citini had evci 
 been made by the IJritish <i:()V«'iiinHMit, tiiron^^h the nsnal </i)h)e,.(iic 
 'channels, npon the I'nited States Ibr e(>nii)ensati on ; and that il eonld not 
 be belie\«'d that sueh elaini wonld not have been made if Her M;ijest.v"s 
 •govern nuMifc ha<l considered such a (;i;'ini valid. The counsel Ibr the 
 United States <-ited, in this ct)nnectio»i, the letter of .Mr. Stuart, Ilei 
 .Ma,iest.v's minister at ^Vashin;•ton, to Mr. Seward, of I.st August, bSdJ, 
 (U. S, Dij*. C'or., b*^(iL', 1S(;;>, part 1, |>. -7.'!,) ui)on a souiewhat aiialo<j:iM!> 
 question, in which Mr. Sluar* says: 
 
 I luivc lii'fii iiisd iiclcfl t.» stiitf to vim that IltT Maji'st >'■■< ^iovcrnmciif, after (••iii 
 siih-iiiifi tlifsi' «liNiiat(li<'s, in cniinrctinii with flic law-dliiiTi-.'i ol' thi' ('r(i\Mi, art- <it 
 <)|>iiii<)ii thai il is ((inipftiiit fur the liiittd Ktiiti-s, as a bflli;;cii'iit powt r. ti> i»ri>tt r 
 ithi'K" \\ilhin its nwn pDits ami li'iiitui\\ liy rcl'tisiii;; rh-araiiccH tn vessels latlen will 
 <M'Mlialii\li>l til' war CI' iithfl' speiilitMi al'tieh'S, as Well as to \cssels x'llieh are lielieviil 
 to i)e lioiiiiil Ui eoiiffilerate iiorts. .\iiil that so loll;; as sinli preeaiit ions ale ailniileil 
 e<(ii;illy anil inililleieiitly in all i asivs, withont lel'ermee lo the nationality or origin i' 
 anv paitienlar \i'.-^cl m ^oods. they do ;iot all'onl any just ;.jronini of cciniidainl. 
 
 Tln' case «)f ihe detention of the Lalinan, it was contended on tin 
 part of the United States, was ooverned by tin; same principles ami 
 Justified by the same rules as the eases rei'erretl to by .Mr, Stuart. Tin 
 eottnsid referred to the decision of the commission upon the Americiii 
 i'laims aoainst (Ireat Uiitain, oi,,\vin,u out of the proliibition of tiie e\ 
 ])ortatioii (»f saltpetre ;iV Calcutta, (American claims, \os. 11, IL', 1(1, is, 
 hereinlietore r(>portcd, and in which siicli prohiltition was held by tin 
 eominission not to involve a xiolatioii either of intiMuatiomd law oi 
 of treaty stipulation : and uroed that the principles which would sii> 
 tiiin the validity cd' such prohibition must also include mi. Ii a case a- 
 the detentiiMi of the l.abiian. 
 
 I'he counsel tor the claimant inaialaincd that the detentiiui of tii< 
 l.alman was in eHect a depiivatioii td' the owners of the use of tlteii 
 properly Ibr the time of the tleU'iition lor tin i>ahlie benefit ; thai ii 
 was in elle* I a lakitio-of piivati- [uoperty fur pidilic, use, always Justilied 
 by the m'«;e.ssity of the Slate, but likewise always invohino" the ubli^.; 
 tion of coiupeiisatioii. Me (ited .'!d IMiillimitre, 11!, and Daim's Wlu i 
 Ion, l."iL', n. 
 
 Tiu' commission unanimously made an awaid in la\ or of Ihe claimam 
 Ibr A;$7,;«L'. 
 
 !n tile eas** c! t'athaiiiie .1. .Itdinsoii, e\eeutii.\, .No. Ill), the menin 
 lial alleoeil that Ihe ci'.t'inant's testator was the sole '•eoist^'red owiH'r«t! 
 ilie j'liilish s<diooner James l)oiiolas, widch \esscl, while on a V(iya;ic 
 from Cuba to New York, met \vilh tijsasler uhicli ied to her beiii^ 
 abandoned by the master and c;cw: that she was subscipienlly fallen 
 in with by a Uniled States \ cssci of war, which look her into the |»(ir! 
 of lieaufoit, North Carolina, Aviiere she was appropriated to the use oi 
 the Unite«l States (lovennnent; that on application to that (loverii 
 nient for her resl»)ration, the Secretary of the Navy ^ave directions that 
 
ACKMS K'KI'OUT. 
 
 17.'J 
 
 the vessel he sill reiiilered to lier owner on liis renouiieiii,!; iill eliiiins lor 
 tlie use of the vessel l»y the I'liited Stiites; that, not \vithstiin<lin;i' these 
 ludcis, the vessel had never been restored to her owner, hnt was still 
 ill the port of l>eaul'ort under the eontrol of the oflu'ials of the United 
 States. The elainnint (ihiinied daniajiTs ><7,flOO. besides interest. 
 
 Tiie |»rooi's showed that, after the vessel was bronjiht into port, and 
 hcf.ne any ehr'ii was interposed on Itehalf of her owner, some use ha<i 
 hoen made jf tlM* Vi'ssel by tin* Navy J)epartment ; that the elaim of 
 the owner was iiiterposed thron;;ii the Ibitish le^^ation, and tiiat tlu; 
 .'iiited .Stat«'s(Joverninent at onee otl'ered to surrender her on {)ayment 
 (tf a I'eav /uable salvajic to the ollieers and cicw of the vessel wiiieh 
 liroiinlit her in. Some oi)jeetion bein;; nnule ' » the payment of the sal- 
 va<;e asked, the rnited States (iovernment dili'eted liei- surr«'n(h'r with- 
 iiiit salva;;e, on the claimant's waiving;" claim Ibr compensation lor the 
 use that had been made of her while in poit. No ol)Jeetion was imule 
 to (his condition, lud in> further claim was ever advanced by any person 
 ioc the vessel. SIk- remained lyin^ at IJcaufoit waiting; i'e(piisition of 
 her ow ner, anil iiotlnnj; fiirtlu'r was ever heard of the matter until the 
 !iiiii.Lt' of the memorial liefore the commission. 
 
 The commissicM' (Mr. Commissioner (iurne;v dissentiuff) made an 
 award in the Ibllowintj words: 
 
 'At- till III; il (lues iiti) apprnr that tlir I'nitcd States a|(|tri>]n ialfil I lie vchsi-I, ami w c 
 N u'liil it as ,\<'t liriiij; tho I'laiiimnt's proin'ity. 'I'lic claiiii is, tiicicl'.irc. disalinwi'il. 
 
 All which is respe<'tfully submitteil. 
 
 IJOIl: S. IIAI.K, 
 
 Atfi lit of llir Ciiilcil Sill Its, dv. 
 
 
 \VASiii.NtJT<»N, Xni-ciubir liOf 187.'». 
 
 claimaii! 
 
l-fl'- 
 
 
 ! M 
 
 1 i 
 
 m 
 
 
A P 1' V] N i) ] X 
 
 .fi,j 
 
 nui 
 
 "i 
 
 
 A.- 
 IJ.- 
 C- 
 1).- 
 K.- 
 
 r. 
 
 Ci. 
 
 II. 
 I. 
 
 K. 
 L. 
 M. 
 
 N. 
 0. 
 
 C O N T E NTS. 
 
 -Aitiilesof treaty, XII to WII 17r> 
 
 -Copy rules of ctmunissioii 177 
 
 -Seliedulo of claims l."^(l 
 
 -riiial award -J-JK 
 
 -Mr. Coiuniissioiier Frazer's opinion in Calcutta Haltpetro rasea 'S.W 
 
 " " " " Henderson's ease, No. 41 'J:!J 
 
 " '' " " cotton cases, ISO. 22'>, «.V c 'S17 
 
 " ■' " " llanna's case, No. 2 ',>:«» 
 
 '• •' " " Sliernian'scase,No. 3.7.); and lirain's ease. 
 
 No. 447 *J4l) 
 
 " " « " llahniins's case. No. 7 '2AI 
 
 •' ■' " " on question of ai>peal in prize eases 24:? 
 
 " " « " the IJio Grande cases 24(> 
 
 " '' " " the Circassian 2u(> 
 
 " • " " the " warned-otV cases " 'J.'.J 
 
 A. 
 
 Articles of the treaty relathifj to the eontinlnsion. 
 
 Abticle Xll- 
 
 Tlie lii;;l» coiitriictiii'; jmitit's n'jfrcc: tliat iill claims on llio i);irt of 
 coipoiatioii.s, coinpaiiics, or ;.iiviit(' individuals ((Miizcn.s of the United 
 St.'tes) upon tlio jj^ovornnuMit of Ilcr IJiitiinnic. .Majesty, arisiiijj out of 
 act; eoiuuiitted aj;ainst the person or jiroperty of eilizensof the United 
 States duriuj^ the period between the lliirtei'Uth of April, eijihteen hun 
 dr»'d and sisty-one, and the ninth of April, eij;hteen hundred and sixty 
 live, inclusive, not hein;; claims orowiny- out of the acts of the v<'ssi'ls 
 rcteiii'd to in Article I of this treaty, and all claims, with the like e\- 
 tcpiion on the part of corporations, compani«'s, or privat.^ individ- 
 uals, (sub/ects of Her IMitaunie Majesty.) upon the (iovernment of 
 the United States, arisin;^ out of acts committed a.^ainst the personsor 
 property of sui>jeets of Her IJritannic Maiesly diiriuir the sanu' period, 
 wliieli nu»y haxc been pn'scnted to either ijoveriniient lor its int<rposi- 
 tinn uith the tMher, and which yet reiiuiin unsettled, as well as any 
 other siU'li claims which may be presented within the tinu' sp»'cilie«l in 
 Article WV o\' this tr«'aty, shall be referred to three c(Mhmissioneis, to 
 • m' a|»pointed in the followinjjj manner, that is to say : One c(uninissi<uu'r 
 >li.dl be iiauM'd by the President of the United Stales, oiu' by Her Ibi 
 ianni( Majesty, an«l a thir«l by thi' IMesident of the United State.s and 
 Her litannic Majesty conjointly ; and in <-ase the third comnMssi(MMM- 
 shal. not have been so named within a period of three iiMiiitliH from the 
 dito of the e.\eliango ol the ratili(Mtioi!.s of tl^i^ treats, tiieii tlie third 
 
111 >i 
 
 17(1 
 
 AMKHICAN-IU.'ITISII CLAIMS COMMISSION, 
 
 comuiissioiicr shiill I»c iiiiiiicd by tli(^ r('i)r(vscntativo at N\'iisliiii;jt()ii oi 
 His Majesty the Iviny; of Spain. In case of tiic dcatli, absonct', or in- 
 <'ai>a<-ity of any coininissioncr, or iu the event of iinv ••oniinissiontT 
 oniittin;^' or ccasinj^" to act, tb<' vacancy shall b.. tilled in the nianncr 
 hereiidu'fore provided for niakin;;' tlie ori^iiiid apj.ointnienf ; the period 
 of three months in (!as(^ of such substitution beiii;;' caleidated iVoiii the 
 date ot the hap]>eninji' of the vat'aiicy. 
 
 'J'he coinniissioneis so nanietl shall meet at Washinfiton at the earliest 
 convenient period alter they have been respiuitively nanu'd ; and shall, 
 bi'lbre pi'oceedinjr to any busiiu'ss, make and snl)scril»e a solemn <leclara- 
 lion that they will impartially and ciuefully examine and decide, to the 
 best of their .jnd<;'ment, and according; to Justice ami ecpiity, all sucii 
 claims as shall be laid before them on the i)art of the yovernnuMits <»!' 
 the Tnited Stales and of Ijei' III itannicMajcsty, jcsjiecitively ; and sucli 
 declaration shall be entered on the record of their p!'oc.eedin<is. 
 
 !^ 
 
 Pi 
 
 
 § 
 
 A unci. i; XIII. 
 
 The commissionois shall then forthwith i>r()ceed to the invest i;jat ion 
 of the claims which shall be pi'csented to them. They shall investijiale 
 and decide such claims in such order and in such manner as they ma\ 
 think i)r<)]»er, but upon such <'videiui' or inlormation only as shall !>e 
 furnished h\ or on behalf of the respective governments. Tluy shall 
 b«' iKMind to receive and consider all writ leu documents or statements 
 which nmy be ]U'esented lo them by or on l.'ehall of the respective '^nx- 
 ornmenis iu sujiport of or in answer * > any claim, and to hear, it re- 
 <piired. <um' ]teis(»n on each side on behalf of «'ach ^■overmneut, as counsel 
 or ajicnt lor such ^'ovi'mment, on each and eveiy separate claim. A 
 nmjoiity of the commissioners shall be sullicient lor an awanl in each 
 case, 'I'he award shall be ;;i\('n upon each claim in wiitin^r. and shall 
 be .sigiMMl by ilie commissioners assenliuj; lo it. It shall be competent 
 for each j«'ov«'rninent to nanu' one jM'rsou to attend the commissioners 
 as its aycnt, lo present and support claims on its behalf, and t'> answer 
 claims nnuie upon it, and to represent it ^icneraUy in all matters con 
 nc'ted with the invest illation and decision thereof. 
 
 The hijih c(udiaetin;; parties herelty enjL;a;ie to consider the deeision-- 
 of the commissioners us altsobilely tinal and cenelusive u|)on «'ai'h claim 
 ilecided upon by them, auil to j;i\e iidh'Ifect to sutrh dv'ci.sions, without 
 any ()bje.:tu»n, e\asion, (»r delay whatsoever. 
 
 Ainu 1 i; N l\ . 
 
 Every claim shall b«' presented to the commissiiuuMs within six months 
 I's un the day of their lirst meeiiiii:, uidess in any case wheiv reasons 
 lor delay shall be established to th«* s;itisfaction of the commissioners. 
 ai.»l tht'ii, and in any such »'ase, \inv perio.t tej- |ireseniiii.ii the claiiii 
 ina\ be evtended i»y them to any tiiiM' m>t e\c<'ediiij,i three months lon<;ei . 
 
 The commissjoncis shall b«' liound to f\. inline and decide upon ever,\ 
 claim within two years troin tbedny o iu-ir tirsi meeting:, it shidl tte 
 competent lor the ciuiuiii-^iouers t« 4«»«*i4ie in each «*ase whether an\ 
 i-laim has or has not been duly mad*-. jU' - r- i. :iud laid belbte them, 
 cither wholly i>rtuany autl wlmt e\i«'nt,a. .._ .<> the true urteiit and 
 
 iiieanin;; of this ireatv. 
 
 Al! sums 4»t inone> *hiek 
 ao(*oiint of usv cSim sfaall I'm t-iiA 
 
 ITLK \V. 
 
 he awardtMl iiy th« commissioners (ui 
 !• li.' >;u' }<;ov»MnmiMil to the othei. 
 
AOENTS UKPOUT. 
 
 177 
 
 as tlio cjiso may bo, within twclvo inontljs iilYor the (Into of tlio liiiul 
 iiwiinl, witlioiit iiitoivst iiml without any <'»"!;;. ;ti()ii, suvo as spccitii'd in 
 Article XVI of this treaty. 
 
 Article XVI. 
 
 The coriimissioiicvs shall keej* an accinale n'(M)r(l and corroct ininnto.s 
 oniotcsof all their proccciiiiiys, with the dates thereof, and may appoint 
 and employ a seer«'tary and any other necessary »)llieer or ollicers to 
 assist them in the transaction of the busiiicss which may come before 
 them. 
 
 Kaeh j;ov<»rnment shall |)ay its own eommissiom'r ami a'i'ent or 
 counsel. All other expenses s!iail l)e defrayed by the two jjovevn meats 
 in etpml moieties. 
 
 The whole expenses of the«'ommission, ineludinj; eontinjjfent expenses, 
 shall be <h'fraycd hy a ratable deduction on the amount of tin* sums 
 awanh'd by the commissioners, provnlel always thit such deduction 
 shall not exceed the rate of live pt'r cent, on the sums so awarded. 
 
 AuTicLi: XVn. 
 
 The hi^h coidraetinj; ]>arties en;4a;;'e to »;onsider the result of the i»ro- 
 cccdin^s of this commission as a full, perfect, and final seitliMnent of all 
 such claims as ar«' nuMitioncd in Article XII of this treaty upon either 
 ptvernment; ami further i-n^^a^-'e that every such <daim, whether or not 
 the sauM^ may have be«'n i»resentcd to the notice of, made, prcferrecl, «)r 
 laid hefore the said commission, shall, from and after the conclusion of 
 the proceedinins ol the said commission, be considertid and treateil as 
 linally settled, barred, and thenceforth ina<lmissible. 
 
 ■1 '^l 
 
 » ■ 
 
 li u h'8 of th c CO mm i.ss ion. 
 
 1. Tn ad<lifion to the representation of his claim, and the |)ruofs in 
 8a|»port tli<'rc(»f wlil'li shall have been lucsented to his ;;()\ ci iuicmI , the 
 chnma'l shall lile in the otiice of the comnnssion a statement ot his 
 claim, in the form of a ud morial, addressed to the commission. 
 
 -. Every nuMuorial shall shit*' the full name ot the<'laimant, the place 
 and time of his birth, and the phu'c or })lae(>s of his r«>si4h>nce lietween 
 tlu' 1.*?th day of April, isci.and lln- *.»lh day of April, l>i«Io, inclusive. 
 If he be a naturalized cili/cii oi sul>ject of the ^^overnmeii, l»_\ which 
 his <!laim is |)n ^cnt«'d, an authenticated copy of the record ol his natu 
 rali/ation >hall be appended to the mcmoiiiil. Ai.d the memorial shall 
 also stale whether he has been naliirali/.ed in an other country than 
 that ot his birth ; and, if not so naturalized, whet'ier tie has taUen an\, 
 and what, steps toward beiiiL;' so naturalized. 
 
 .'{. it the claim be preferred in be-all' of a linn or association ot' prisons 
 other than a corporation (U' joint stock ctunpaiiy, the names of e.ch per 
 Mill interested, Itoth at the date of the .'tim accrued and at I'.e date of 
 v<'ril',viii^ the memorial, must be stated, wiln '^lie proporti -us of each 
 person's interest. And all the particulars al)ove rei,.''''ed '.o lie ;;iven in 
 the case of individual claimanls must be stated in respeijtuf each mem. 
 12 II 
 
ITS 
 
 AMKRICAN-FJIUTlsit CLAIMS COMMISSION'. 
 
 W 
 
 i 
 
 t 
 
 Imt of sMcli linii or assixtiiitioii, unless tlu' saiiu* ho <lisiM«ns«'(l witli on 
 sinM'ial order ot tlie (;oiniiiission. ll' iiii.v trniisCer of the elaiii, or aiis 
 l)art thereoC, Iia.s occinred, tlie nature, and mode of siieli trau^fei' must 
 be stated. 
 
 •1. The Mieinorial must slate tlie |):utienlars of the claim, the ^M-tK-ral 
 grounds on which It is fonndeil, an<l the amount claimed. It shall he 
 verilied h.vthe oath or alVirmation of i!u' <'laimanl, or, in the case here 
 inafter provided, of his a;4('nt or at toriM'y ; or if the claim l)i' Ity a liiiii 
 oi' an ine()r|»oiate associatioii of jtersons, then l»y tlu' oath or allirmatiun 
 of one of them ; or in the ease of a corporation or joint stock company, 
 by the oath or allirmation ot' tlie president or other olbcer. Such oaths 
 or atlirmations may be tai^en, if in the ('nit«'d States or (ii'cat Ibitaiii, 
 luMbre any ollicer ha\ in;; authority, aecordiii;^ to the laws of the place, 
 to administer oaths or alVirmations ; and tlu'y may be taken in the said 
 i'ouutrics, OI' elsewhere, befoic any consul or diplomati<' a^ent of eitlici 
 ^'overnneMil. The veiilicaf it>u nniy l>e by tlie a^eiit or attorney only 
 when veiillcatioii by the claimant is substantially imprai'ticable, or can 
 only be;4i\t'U at ^reat inc(in\eiiience. And in caseof veritication i>y anient 
 or attt)rii«'y, the cause, of tlu' failui-e ol' the claimant to verify it shall ln' 
 staled. 
 
 ()i>jeetioii to the Jurisdiction of the commission, or to the sul1icienc\ 
 of the case stated in the meimuial, may be made in the tbrni of a ^h• 
 murrer, slalin;^'. without technical iiicet\, the substantial i^ronnd ottlir 
 objection. .Any new matter, constituting^' a special ^Mound of defciise. 
 may b' sta(e<l in a plea, which may bf the subject «>f demurrer, ami all 
 demurrers may be set for hearing' oii a ten days' notice. 
 
 .'). I'iVcry claimant shall be allowed two mouths, after the fdinifof his 
 ineiiKU'ial, to complete his proofs; and after the ctmipletion of his proofs, 
 and notice thereof ;;i veil, two months shall be allow«'d for takin;;' proofs 
 l(U' the defeii.se, with such further e.\tensi(Ui oi" time, in each case, as the 
 commission, on application, may yrant, for cause shown. 
 
 Attei' the proofs on the part of the defense shall have been close<l. the 
 eommissioii will, when the <'laiiuant shall desiie to take relmtl in;; proof, 
 accord a reasimable time for the purpose. 
 
 (5. .Vll depositions after the liliii;;' of the memorial shall be taken on 
 noti(H', specifying; the time and place of takiii;;, to be tiled in tiie ollicc 
 of the coaiinission, witli a «'oi*> of the iiiterro;;atories, or a stateiueni in 
 writing; by the counsel of tlie ;ioveriinn'nt adduciny tin* witness, show- 
 ing tin' schject of the partii'iihir exaiuiiiatioii with suHicient precision to 
 be.u'cepted by the c(miisel of the ;;overnmeut a;;ainst whom smrh wit- 
 le'.ss l.s to be prodilce(l. to be si;;iiilieil by his iudor.seineiit I hereon. Such 
 intei;;";atori<'S (M- staleineiii to be tiled in tlu* ollici' of the c(Miimissi(»ii 
 at least lifieeii days lietoie the day naaied for tlie examination, with one 
 a«lditi('ii;il <lay Ibr every live humlrc'! miles of<listance fn>m Washin;; 
 ton to tile place wln'ie the deposition is to be taken. NVheii ile[iositioiis 
 are to be taken clsevvheri' than in N;irth America thirty days »vill lie a! 
 lowed. 
 
 7. i'very deposition taken in the I'liited St. lies shall be taken before 
 8oine oiUcei autlnn i/.eil to take depit>itious in caus(>s pending in courts 
 of tlu' riiiled Slates. UepositioiiH in ( Jreat Ibitain and her posses 
 sioiis may be taktui before any person auThori/ed to take deposititin.'^ 
 to be c ed ill courts of record, or any Justice of the peace. Depositions 
 ill tlnise countries or elsewhere may be taken before any consul or diiilo- 
 MMtic ainent of eitluM jiovernmeiif. 
 
 In all cases tim <'ross-e\aiiiinalioii of the witness may be by written 
 iuterr«)jy;alorie8, or orally, in the election of the jmrty cro.s.s•examinini,^ 
 
AGKNTS 1!KIM)UT, 
 
 170 
 
 S. Tlio roiminssionois mny iit iiiiy tiiiu' isMicn spcciiil (•^)mmi.ssi(ni for 
 the tiikiii;^' <»r tcsliiiKtiiy on tln' ;iu|tlic;ili(tii of citlicr i»iirly ; siidi 1»'n1i 
 iiiuiiy to lie liiKcii citlirr in wriilm inlcnouatKiics or orally, as tliccoin- 
 iiiissioncrs mas ordiT. 
 
 The coninii.ssjoncrs may als(t. on motion of rillicr i>aity. ordci- any 
 claimant oi' w iinrss to appear pcisonally hcloic llicm lor examination or 
 crosscxaminalion. 
 
 i>. When any original papers filed in t/jie St;ite I>cparlment (»f the 
 I'liiletl States oi- in the aicliives of the I'.ritish le^iatmn in \\'a.shin;;ton 
 cannot l.e conveniently withdrawn Irom the lih's. «'oi»ies thereof will We 
 recei\cd in e\idence, when certified l>y the State Department (tr i»y the 
 I'.ritish le^^alion, as the <'ase may he. 
 
 10. Wjieii tlu'time has j'xpired toi- takinj; proofs, or the ease has heeu 
 close(l on both si(h's, the proofs will he ininled nnder the direction of 
 the secretary, and at the expense of the commission. 'I"he ar;;nmenr 
 for the claimant shall he tiled within lifleen days alter the paper shall 
 have heen printed, and the ease shall stand foi- hearing;' ten days there- 
 aitei'. 
 
 11. The seeictary will prepare, from time to time, lists of cases roady 
 for licaiiu;;-, either njiDii deaitirrer or np(»nthe mrrits, in the order in 
 which they are entitled to l>e heard, oi- in which the connsel for the two 
 f-'overnments shall a;:re(' that they shall lie heard. 
 
 I'.J. .\1I cases will lie snhiiiittcd o:i printed ar;!iimeiils. u liich shall con- 
 tain a statement of the facts proven and rcfeicn*'!' to the e\ idene(^ hy 
 which they are proven, and, in Kthlitinn, the connsel lor the respcittive 
 ;:o\ crnments will he hea\tl n liencMr the\ <lesii(' to ar;;iie any cause orally. 
 Ai';^nments ol' counsel tor iiidi\ idual claimants will Im> receiNcd, in print, 
 wlu'ii snitmittetl hy the counsel (»f either jnoveriuneiit, and not other- 
 wi.so. 
 
 !.■). Claims aj^aiiist the Tinted States and ( Ireat llriJain, respectively, 
 will he entered in difi'eiciit dockets kept h\ the secretary. The dock- 
 ets shall contain an ahstra»!l ol .dl proeeediii;;s, motion.v, and oiders in 
 each ease. 
 
 11. The secretary will keep a record of the i>r()«'ee(liii<f« of the coin- 
 mission upon each day ot" its session, which shall he n'ad at the next 
 meetiii;,'. and will then he sailed hy him ami approved hy tiie si;;iiatiire 
 of the presidiii;; commissioner. 
 
 I."i. 'hie secretary will keep a tiotieeborik, in which entries may ho 
 made hy the eoiiii.>el for eitln'r ;L;(tveriiment, and all entries soinade shall 
 he iiiMlce to the opposin;; eoiili>el. 
 
 Hi. The secretary shall pi'tniih* lii>oks of printed forms, in which will 
 he recoided the awards of the commission, si;^ne<l hy ihe commis>ioners 
 eoiicmrinj; therein. Tiie awards aj;aiiist each yoNcrimu'iit w ill lu' kept 
 in a se|)arate hook. 
 
 17. A (Mipy (»f each award, certitied hy tlie secretary of the commis.sion, 
 will he iiii nisheil, on request, to the party upon whose claim .sueli awanl 
 shall have heen made. 
 
 IS. Tile dockets, minutes o( proceedin;:'s, ami records of awards will 
 he kept in duplicate, one ot wiiich wiil he dclivervtl to each y;overnment 
 at the close ot the duties of the eonunission. 
 
 HI. TIh' secretary wil ha\e eliai';it' of all the books and papers of the 
 eoiiimission, and no papers siiall lu' withdrawn Irom the tiles or taken 
 from the otlice without an lutler of the eoiiimiwsiiin. 
 
I 
 
 180 
 
 ■£ J 
 
 I S 
 
 3 
 
 to 
 
 o 
 
 AMKlMCAN-MKMTlSir CI.AIMS COMMISSION. 
 
AGENTS KEPOKT. 
 
 181 
 
 it 
 
 u 
 
 s. 
 
 i 
 i 
 
 c 
 
 R 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 ll ■ 
 
 if 
 
 f1 
 
 
 ci 
 
 ..-f 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 - 
 
 V 
 
 »[ 
 
 u 
 4 
 
 
 J-? 
 
 S 
 
 r 
 
 ii 
 
 r 
 
 u 
 
 3 
 
 « 7 
 
 
 5 
 
 '* 
 
 :$ 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 »^i^ 
 
 < 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 P* 
 
 <«J 
 
 (• 
 
 "^■l 5 
 
 g 
 
 5 
 
 
 12 
 
 **• 
 
 « 
 
 
 'i 
 
 s 
 
 If 
 
 r fe r 
 
 3 
 9 
 
 
 ? 
 
 rr c- 
 
 I i 
 
 
 =. '■* 
 
 3 
 
 A. 
 
 i:-^ 
 
 j;: 
 
 3 
 
 
 ■^ :i 
 
 = 2=5 = 
 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 n 
 
 it 
 
 % 
 
 X 
 
 
 if 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 ? 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 "9 [/! 
 
 
 S £ 
 
 
 
 /. 
 
 '<• ^ 
 
 a s 
 
 i -1 
 
 '3 £ = 
 
 a 
 •■J 
 
 3 . ^ = - 
 
 — -< 1^ 
 
 >J 3 
 
 
 ~ Sz ~ s t 5 
 s - Z ^ " » " 
 iS !^C 'J >< !>! 
 
 3 I 5? 5^ f § 
 
 
 rr r - - 
 
 
 « ■* ■* r^ a a 
 
 g^ PS 
 
 AS rat 
 
 C-s B-V 
 
 B r 
 4'= 
 
 
 '' 3 = r •• 
 
 a 5 = • r"? --• 
 
 « = = C ;. 
 
 
 7 - •/. ' ■: '- 
 
 55 fl 
 
 
 (. ?: i 
 
 Si- 53 B 
 
 £ i: i A •/. 
 
 c 2- 
 
 .E"? 
 
 - ■_ — • .^ ~ •- 
 
 
 
 a .: f 
 
 « ?■_ 
 
 7 = - 
 
 
 •5-~ f 
 ^ '^ >, ^ 
 
 "• 3 -1 
 
 a ^' E ==■'■- ~ 
 r~ UTrs « r. = ;•:. s -4 = ^ .,• s /: 
 
 j a.::^^;;; S 5 A 1.' i^ § = i is-=^'i A 
 
 : ■- -J ; 
 
 .»3^ 
 
 = - I • » 
 
 U. H H 
 
 
 
 < j A rf tSl~< i< i i C-A % r.--Z Z"t 
 
 i a u r -O ,'. u. a 
 
 3 
 
 ;t 
 aK 
 
 a 
 
 t 3 
 I" 
 
 
 g 
 
 3 
 
 ?l ii 
 
 
 
 ^ -^ 
 
 
 "^ b I 5 
 
 ii.i » 
 
 •^ C 
 
 5 i 
 41 
 
 -3 H 
 
 !n ?. » ?t ri 
 
 •3 I 
 
 if s 
 
 a H 
 
 '•- " 
 
 a ~ 
 
 f ^ I 
 
 Hi 
 1 1 1 
 
 X w »^ 
 ?i ;: ^ 
 
si! 
 
 Kn 
 
 1«2 
 
 ^ 
 
 «c 
 
 ^ 
 
 A.MKI.'K'AN-MI.'ITISII (I, A I.MS COMMISSION'. 
 
 '^ n?i 
 
 •M^ t?i J? 
 
 • w *' 
 
 w. ^ ~ 
 
 if;;s 
 
 ■:/ - 
 
 s. 3 r = 
 
 \ % % 1 
 £ 5 5 < 
 
 i •>'. 
 
 J,: 
 
 <5t) 
 
 5 ..• I- u< 
 .S-r .i is 
 
 »^ 
 
 sJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■s'.3 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 5 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 t:-B 
 
 .V 
 
 & 
 
 § 
 
 S 
 
 :§ 
 
 f 1 s § 
 
 Si 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 1* 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 St 
 
 1 3 u 1 
 
 <l 
 
 »* 
 ^ 
 
 s 
 
 li 
 
 S 
 
 '■^ 
 
 
 b- 'rf 
 
 rt p" — <»« 
 
 S 5 • 
 
 i S S 
 
 I- C -r 
 
 5>" ")"" 5f 
 
 = ^ ^ 
 
 rt n - ..,• 
 
 H HA 
 
 -" a = 
 •? =•'-' 
 
 •_ '^ 
 
 = .ji^^;-7 5. 5 2 = 
 
 
 r, ? 
 
 w w '^ ^. •/ 7. S ^ 
 
 
 I I 
 
 713 rr?3 
 
 \ \ "r 
 
 
 Ei =i -5 
 
 <■.'- « u /. 
 
 lj 7- Ij 
 
 |-=>r 
 
 u 
 
 .? « 
 
 u y 
 
 i;! Tl 
 
 £ Zi I -^ 
 
 -« X 
 
 w C ^ tZ^ 
 
 ?5 r ? 
 
 Si fl 5 
 
 T-T ? ?■«-■? 
 
 ■= >.t: r * 
 
 a S = 
 
 a a ^is <= ^.. 
 
 •^ . =• 
 
 ? .•- i 
 
 S'r -^ 
 
 •/. i: A A I a 
 
 X — f. 
 
 r 3- t^ 
 
 _ v. _ 
 
 >• 2£^- 
 
 r-?? - 
 
 - T N - N 
 
 : .ic i- 
 
 1: ^ ^ >. i J = 
 
 ■ • u -t .' -^^ 
 
 7. = _■•= J 
 
 a ? •= 
 
 J; = -iJi: 
 
 ■.^ - = - 
 
 
 
 5 i .^ t ii • 
 
 -•■r'^-t- 
 
 
 5 ? — 
 
 .— — "*. 
 
 
 ; < •? 7. 
 
 
 1 f ^ — i V 
 
 T T ■/ r. — 
 
 
 
 r .= 7 £^ 
 
 ^ » 
 
 
 U 
 
 S 
 
 I I i I 
 
 ^ - 'S 
 
 •s i ^ fc 
 
 Sn o 
 
 « 1. 
 
 
 »5 .-r 
 
 i - 5 — 
 
 :■-< rJ-^-i 
 
 
 w Cu. c 
 
ACJKNTS UKI'OKT. 
 
 \h:\ 
 
 - 
 
 r 
 
 Ti 
 
 
 1-5 
 
 
 
 tu 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 is 
 
 r 
 
 -«) 
 
 8 S 
 
 3 ?. 
 
 •J 
 
 ■< « 
 
 .t:"3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; f 
 
 ^,"" 
 
 
 
 • "T 
 
 " •— 
 
 » -^ 
 
 ■i 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 if 
 
 
 I- 
 
 I* 
 
 i:^ _ - ^ 
 
 c 
 
 it 
 -"1 
 
 I- ; •-. 
 
 ie i» i» - i ^ 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 
 n"i 
 
 -i 
 
 
 
 rf 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 (• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t. 
 
 
 ri 
 
 
 , Tl 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ci - 
 
 r^ -^ 
 
 'C 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 i i 
 
 = > 
 
 J 
 
 ; 
 
 I-' 
 
 s 
 
 .-' S 
 
 •TX 
 
 4 
 
 X. 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 
 
 i:x 
 
 1^ * 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 $ 
 Tl 
 
 
 •A. I- 
 
 ■»• 
 
 •■*• 
 
 
 
 
 L. ^ 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ?: s 
 
 <1 *-^ 
 
 -c 
 
 '4^ 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ -^ 
 
 Z u 
 
 S. 
 
 C 
 
 — 
 
 b 
 
 
 
 ft 
 
 
 - 
 
 :l 
 
 •'..i 
 
 is :? 
 
 it 
 
 l» 
 
 1? 
 
 l» 
 
 ca 
 
 -t;-i 
 
 < 
 
 ^ 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 
 
 i § § 3 
 i2 ? ? 
 
 9 
 
 7?i 
 
 3 3 S 
 
 I I § 
 
 tts 
 
 
 Tt -" 
 
 >', 
 
 :J r 
 
 
 . "* z >> 
 
 3 
 
 1> -?i ^ 
 
 
 1 i i' 
 
 ?5 ,^:^ ->^ --^ a 
 
 •ii 
 
 M 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 ef-i 
 
 IJ 
 
 n 
 
 :•! 
 
 
 .M 
 
 .•rf 
 
 ,__^ 
 
 
 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 En 
 
 -J 'i' 3 
 
 5a a a 
 
 7 -• ? ?.-! 7-' i 
 
 < >•> -f. I i I x. ?! 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ?! >. -r 
 
 
 
 i I i r 
 
 ■ * 
 
 rl 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 I 
 
 > 
 9 
 
 v. 
 
 if 
 J 
 
 1 
 
 Cf 
 
 K X X .-r. 
 
 3 
 
 wJ-J '-i T " 
 
 r :: = -' ^=^-r./' Sit .^ >.---.r:; 
 
 ^ 
 
 f?^ 
 
 t s 
 
 X 
 
 H 
 
 ^ J ;: 
 
 -< - 
 
 •* 
 
 .- 
 
 r T'C 
 
 5t 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >- ~ . 
 
 = 1* 
 
 
 ' — 
 
 a a > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 V,y,Y,/,y. 
 
 x: 
 
 ? 
 
 Vr 7 
 
 ?? 
 
 ? 
 
 
 -. « — 
 
 « ■>■ 
 
 '^ 
 
 1 
 
 " •"; ^"i 
 
 
 r! 
 
 
 . ■_ 
 
 
 — 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 .- •- 
 
 — 
 
 
 -^ »^ * 
 
 > i 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 * "^ 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 
 — -3 
 
 >■>. 
 
 - 
 
 •— 12 
 
 — 2 
 
 . "■* 
 
 .-: 
 
 
 u u 
 
 
 
 
 •1<J . 
 
 ; 2 
 
 a 
 
 
 . /• •< 
 
 ..JS 
 
 •w 
 
 
 
 
 - '!] 
 
 1 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 
 ■r^ 
 
 1 
 
 •r = ^ 
 
 / 
 
 = J 
 
 £ 
 
 ~ ? 
 
 y. 
 
 •A = - = r- .- 1 5 
 
 T 
 
 < 
 
 — t. 
 
 "c 
 
 
 \i. 
 
 is 
 
 . H l^'H 
 
 I 
 
 — '.H 
 
 
 — * Z 
 
 . ;7. 
 
 - " S ^ " - -^ . = 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S « 
 
 ■c 
 
 5 T 
 
 I 
 
 — 3 
 
 J: J: 
 
 
 
 i ii 
 
 I 
 
 1% 
 
 1- - 
 
 !■-. Vtl'l^^'i 
 
 - 
 
 
 h] 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 r^ •-< 
 
 <■^ 
 
 1^ 
 
 2rt 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 r- - r- •_ = 
 
 .3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 \ 
 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 a: 
 
 5 
 
 
 § 
 
 1 
 
 
 a 
 J 
 
 
 
 >^ 
 
 •J. _ 
 
 Ii 
 
 = 
 
 
 1 
 < 
 
 IT wi 
 — . c 
 
 Ui 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 '^ 
 
 X 
 
 S 
 3 
 
 
 IjIIII 1 
 
 ■X' 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 oo 
 
 ill 
 
 •; 
 
 18 
 
 s 
 
 
 l^S S3 := 
 
 
 = £■/■■"- ■ 
 
 
 / ^ "( Z 3 ^ y i; ^ 3 A i; - ^'i *- - -■ - ^ 
 
 a H a „_=a?. '^ 
 
 = i I 
 
 S 2 3 
 
 ■"■ ►I a 
 
 '^ ? a 
 
 "= 3 S 
 
 •< 5 a 
 
 r( -r ij 
 
 « .J .^ 
 
 I 
 
 si 
 
 i 
 
 
 1' . 
 
 
 1 » 
 
 
 
 v; 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET {MT-3) 
 
 !.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 '^4 5 
 
 ill ~ 
 
 »^ IM i; 
 
 ilM l|||^ 
 12.2 
 
 II 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 ■ 
 
 1.25 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 < 6" - 
 
 
 ► 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 ^\^ 
 
 '^\'^ 
 
 qjj 
 
 :\ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 23 WEST K\l>» STREET 
 WEBSTER, NY. 14580 
 
 (716) 87'i.'»';f>3 
 
 
 <^ 
 
" % \# ^ 
 
 
 <\ 
 
 6^ 
 
184 
 
 AMERICAN-IJRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 
 i : :i 
 
 
 V 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 
 Si 
 
 
 
 
 SI. 
 
 "^ 
 
 4 
 I 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 
 <-a 
 
 ^ 
 
 .|==?1^2Sv 
 
 si 
 
 d 
 
 i£e~-i 
 
 S 
 
 00 
 
 .5 d~-.i 
 
 1^ 
 
 »-H 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 fc r i o- i 
 
 
 
 •=. = ^?'.=.. 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 rt = = « 
 
 
 
 
 !« =-5 « J: 
 
 ^ 
 
 Z' 
 
 - Z — ' 5 
 
 ■3 
 
 'f- 
 
 
 e»i "* r ir '-^ - 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 :!< : 
 
 
 = c 
 
 if- s 
 
 "* i ~ s a 
 
 2 > - — CI I- 
 
 o s ?- i 
 
 rs 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 s ^ 
 
 C i- 
 
 C M 
 
 ? s 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 I i 
 
 p. c^ s< 
 S S S 
 
 <1 <1 -!] <5 <1 .2 
 ^ HH Ph Ah ^ ^^ 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 c s« n 
 
 
 ir^ i= .« 
 
 Hj K 
 
 Cv X CZ TU -^ 
 
 a 
 
 
 2 ^ 
 
 I 
 
 f r r ill" 
 
 B 
 -I) 
 
 
 
 3 
 t-5 
 
 p- 
 
 CI ^ 
 
 
 
 . .-5 
 
 5 5 
 ■=^ a 
 
 b>5 
 
 
 
 c = x: 
 
 i^j 
 
 fl ►t "^ ~ 
 
 :S -2 S.g<.= 5 ? 
 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 2 
 
 O 
 
 a P<2^ 
 
 i illli 
 
 j; 2 5 ? = .^ jf X -3 
 
 Sl'.^r =. 
 
 
 9 
 
 B 
 
 I 
 
 a 
 
 s 
 
 a 
 Q 
 S. 
 
 » 
 Pi 
 
 B 
 ft 
 
 M 
 
 0) 
 V 
 
 s 
 
 -3 
 
 a 
 > 
 
 O 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 * o a 
 
 K5iH 
 
 
 ■5 =^ >..3 
 
 M 
 
 B 
 
 'C 
 
 ci 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 si 
 
 S3 
 
 a ? 
 
AGENT S REPORT. 
 
 185 
 
 lit 
 
 
 S I 
 
 i,» 
 
 
 Z o 
 
 •^ 3 ^ 
 
 — — . o o 
 
 I. ;s 
 
 o 
 
 h -H 
 
 o ^ 
 '^ If 
 
 -73 03 ^ 4i '^ 
 
 '5 S <5 5 
 
 
 >, 
 
 ^-4 
 
 00 
 
 ri 
 
 
 i. 
 
 
 1 
 
 no 
 
 
 a 
 
 t- 
 
 »H 
 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1-5 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 C3 
 
 :.) 
 
 Tl 
 
 c 
 
 
 S 
 
 3 
 
 !? 
 
 c^ 
 
 
 « 
 
 <u 
 
 
 >5 
 
 *~r 
 
 -^ 
 
 p 
 
 -a 
 
 -s 
 
 'w 
 
 o 
 
 <2 
 
 e 
 
 o 
 
 
 is 
 
 ^ 
 
 !s 
 
 *^ 
 
 o 
 
 •r . 
 
 c . 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 i^rs 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 5 
 
 s^^ 
 
 1;2 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 Q 
 
 •^ 
 
 C 
 
 Q 
 
 P 
 
 ^ '/> 
 
 t- 
 
 d 
 
 C3 
 
 
 o 
 
 i*^ 
 
 n 
 
 
 m 
 
 C4 
 
 ei 
 
 —4 
 
 ••/.■ 
 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 1 f 
 
 _ 
 
 C P 
 
 C 
 
 gi^ 
 
 is 
 
 -1J 
 
 < 
 
 C 3 
 
 
 d 
 
 Si 
 
 o 
 
 r5 
 
 s 
 
 C 7f 
 
 1- 
 
 T-t 
 
 o 
 
 ?? 
 
 § 
 
 g 
 
 g 
 
 % 
 
 
 CI 
 
 
 «1 
 
 
 1 
 
 ou 
 
 — 
 
 — ■ — , 
 
 . — ' — , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (?> 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 IgO 
 
 o 
 
 
 k 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ?! 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 • c o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CU 
 
 T 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 . O T" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *-r 
 
 ^ 
 
 cs 
 
 
 
 1 o'— ' 
 
 -:» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r-t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . — 
 
 -■ — . 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 j; 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 .- 
 
 
 
 : ; : 
 
 :a 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 C 
 
 
 =? 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 CS 
 
 
 ; 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ,3 
 
 
 
 
 ! 3" 
 
 cf 
 
 9^ 
 
 
 I— 
 
 > 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 .2 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 a: 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 ' I rr 
 
 5 
 
 ' r^H 
 
 
 1) 
 
 - u 
 
 j; 
 
 
 5 
 
 V 
 
 73 
 
 ^ 
 
 >? 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 £ 
 
 5 
 
 03 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 ■r. 
 
 c 
 < 
 
 K i ^ — — 
 
 ■= ^ 
 J/; 
 
 ■4 
 ?5 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 SI 
 
 <v« 
 
 1- i.-i 
 
 >MS 
 
 1* 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 ij 
 
 
 fH 
 
 — H 
 
 
 — -^ 
 
 w 
 
 *-t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r* 
 
 1 
 
 <X3 r-tH 
 
 © 
 
 Cl 
 
 
 
 
 
 1— 1 
 
 
 1-( 
 
 
 
 
 
 "Si 
 '5 
 
 o 
 
 S-l 
 
 , 
 
 F— .— • 
 
 
 o: 
 
 . .— 
 
 <- ' 73 
 
 O 
 
 ■S a 
 
 ii 
 
 s^ 
 
 c3 
 
 
 ' ?« 
 
 
 (=< = 
 
 2 i 
 
 "H-a 
 
 ^ 
 
 tf >> 
 
 |52 
 K tt ; 
 
 <-^ 
 
 "3 a 
 
 ='!= 
 
 
 
 ^=.= 
 
 
 5| 
 
 
 
 
 i-2>- 
 
 
 .« « 
 
 't-? 
 
 
 s 
 
 a s 
 
 «il 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 , " 
 
 c: ♦- 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 a :;• 
 
 ^ » 
 
 
 
 
 >.r. r: Z: 
 
 
 o c 
 
 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 
 
 ISM 
 
 c i" 
 
 35 ^'^ 
 
 2 5 
 
 ^ 
 >.'^ 
 
 "1 " 
 
 'C '■~ - ^ 
 
 Till 
 
 7 -^ 
 
 O S5: 
 
 
 — > 
 
 <!' 
 
 X C 
 
 7. ill 
 
 ^ 
 
 *>M 
 
 X 
 
 ^ 
 
 Ki 
 
 ;i 
 
 t-^ 
 
 
 
 1* r: 
 
 X X 7j 
 
 
 f-T 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 1-5 
 
 ^■T lO 
 
 "3 
 
 ~ a * L^ ► 
 
 rt — r 
 
 I - - L'' -^ _ r _ — i; '^ i 
 
 = l--^ 'iS:" i-^T. i- «= >J t " ? i' / S >.|: i;": X ? I 7-4 il i'a ,-?--= 2 -j-S-= "-.■? - "."r ^'1 
 
 « ^^ .y _•*--, a ♦; ^ 
 
 -i ^ - _ .- r. 
 
 7. ^ 
 
 i(. 3 . r. — -a 2 .-^.E ~ i: - "T 
 
 
 _= a 
 
 
 o 
 
 - i-i ?5 ^ 
 
 
 - ^ -t^ 
 
 (=5 a.:: 5 
 
 ►^a ci. 
 
 o 
 
 ^ Ml- 
 
 :::^ «s = 
 
 >; c;"= rt 
 
 ■S cl^ ? r 
 
 a -a 
 
 C S 
 
 M " 
 
 2 «- 3 
 
 w C8 " 
 
 u w 
 
 ■5 — ^ 
 H5 1-5 W 
 
 
 Ph 
 
 « t» 
 
 H-^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 t/5 
 
 5 a 
 
 ^s s 
 
 3! ou a§ !u 
 
 s 
 
 
m 
 
 186 
 
 AMERK'AN-BEITISII CLAIMS C0MMIS8I0X. 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 o 
 O 
 
 s 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 as 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 c- 
 
 o" 
 
 
 its' 
 
 
 
 r- 
 
 1^* 
 
 
 
 -^^--^ 
 
 
 ci M r^" 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 oiiT 
 
 («-4 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 
 f5 
 
 ■/J 
 
 
 2 " 
 
 
 
 
 1- 1- SI 
 
 *2 
 
 
 
 
 ■n 
 
 o 
 
 .1 
 
 s 
 
 •7^ 
 
 o ^ 
 
 
 1.-5 
 
 
 
 1 I 
 
 
 
 3 - *" 
 
 -; y = ^ 
 
 S *? ,2 -j" 
 
 2; — V. ^ 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ci6 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 1,. 
 
 
 4' - ( 
 
 X 
 
 Hi 
 
 
 is 
 
 .c 
 
 7^ > 
 
 r5 
 
 
 
 5 z^ 
 
 
 V.V. g'» 
 
 •J 
 
 
 
 j5 
 
 X Z 
 (f. -* . 
 
 
 <5 
 
 < 
 
 ■^ 
 
 q 
 
 *f* 
 
 HH 
 
 
 <■ 
 
 "" < 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 22 -< 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 nH 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4J :j 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 s- a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j: « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <« ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s*^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ y 
 
 
 ! ! ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 m'^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c ^ 
 
 
 I '. 
 
 
 
 
 
 '> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --<- 
 
 
 ''. '. '. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 c 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 
 § ?5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 1" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p- . 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 rs 
 
 
 <= = 1.-: 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Il 
 
 o 
 
 1- 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 
 o -t< 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 -r 1.-3 
 
 (T 
 
 
 
 
 
 «-H 
 
 ':» 
 
 i-- 
 
 o 
 
 
 'tj 
 
 nc 
 
 
 w 13 
 
 
 
 
 ;s 
 
 
 c r: 7< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 ci "■ 
 
 
 Oi o 
 
 ri 
 
 'T 
 
 c- 
 
 
 
 i- 
 
 
 
 
 1-t 
 
 
 C-. OJ 
 
 1— 
 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 
 «" 
 
 
 o' 
 
 « 
 
 n 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 cr 
 
 
 
 
 c-T 
 
 
 — i.-T 
 
 ,- 
 
 
 
 t^' 
 
 i-T 
 
 c^ 
 
 71 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *- 
 
 
 ctj ■'•' 
 
 i- 
 
 
 
 irs 
 
 
 r 
 
 'ff 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 "*' 
 
 — ^ 
 
 
 ^~~ 
 
 
 
 ~~ 
 
 *~^ 
 
 r*-^ 
 
 Si^^ 
 
 _~. 
 
 — w_— 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ; 
 
 
 o 
 
 _ 
 
 O 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 ; ; ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 ; 
 
 +3^ 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 oo 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ac 
 
 1 . t 
 
 = 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 3 § 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 ! 
 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 1- 
 
 t- 
 
 c- 
 
 ■ 1 * 
 
 C i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 o_a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 o 
 
 -r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ' 
 
 
 »--: 
 
 71 
 
 si 
 
 
 c^ 
 
 
 i- 
 
 »- 
 
 ' ' ! 
 
 JC ~5 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 <■» 
 
 ( 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 _" 
 
 ^' 
 
 
 
 o" 
 
 x" 
 
 -vT 
 
 ti 
 
 1 i * 
 
 cC o" 
 
 Ci" 
 
 otT 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 '*. 
 
 
 
 
 irs 
 
 
 i--5 
 
 i.n 
 
 ; ; : 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 s 
 
 i. 
 
 
 t 
 
 ; 
 
 
 _2 
 
 i 
 
 ;> 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 f*ri ' ' 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 s 
 
 i 
 
 j 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 C 
 
 
 i 
 
 • 3 
 
 S 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 I'J 
 
 C 3 
 
 < 
 
 C 
 
 02*" 
 
 3 
 
 
 y> 
 
 ^ 
 
 j <5 
 
 rH 
 
 ";^ 
 
 ►^ 
 
 j K 
 
 1 
 
 • f^ 
 
 3 
 '^ 
 
 
 3 
 U 
 
 
 S5 5 
 
 1-^ 
 
 (2 ?j 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 m 
 
 "*: 
 
 s ^^ 
 
 CJ 
 
 CI 
 
 ~z 
 
 . .^ 
 
 
 < ti> 
 
 1^ 
 
 1, 
 
 i.tt 
 
 ^ 
 
 n -n 51 
 
 -»• 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 rt 
 
 -, 
 
 
 to 
 
 \ to 
 
 t^ 
 
 <2 
 
 ic 
 
 •■i 
 
 
 , *< 
 
 
 :s 
 
 
 
 
 
 '- -J ■s 
 
 ID 
 
 
 
 
 'j 
 
 
 'X 
 
 
 ^ CO 
 
 X) 
 
 >X) 
 
 '/ 
 
 ■X) 
 
 
 
 
 <1U 
 
 
 vJU 
 
 
 ty,: X crj 
 
 Ij 
 
 
 '5 
 
 5j 
 
 Jj 
 
 
 r 
 
 G 
 
 ^ S 
 
 f 
 
 r 
 
 
 " si 
 
 ; 
 
 ! "Z 
 
 
 t-' 
 
 i.*:" 
 
 t-' 
 
 < 
 
 ^2:^:;^ i 
 
 1-1 
 
 r 
 
 
 r 
 
 1-1 
 
 a 
 
 Cl 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 -'i - 
 
 1 
 
 > 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 
 / -^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 .3 
 
 7J 
 
 a 
 
 01 
 
 .a 
 
 
 ;- 
 i 
 
 T 71 -H a 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 i *H 
 
 'A 
 
 *^ 
 
 C 
 f^ 
 
 >^ 
 
 ■ 
 
 ; X 
 
 ^ 
 
 P^ 
 
 s 
 
 < 
 
 ia s 
 
 >'h 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 H '-3 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 > 1 
 
 a 
 
 
 ft 
 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 
 2^ =2 
 
 3- -§3 
 
 E=1 
 '^' T-Z. 
 
 '3 
 
 X 
 
 a 
 
 S 
 
 •^ s 
 
 ^r' 
 
 
 
 Z) 
 
 c 
 
 
 in 
 
 • o 5 
 
 >j 
 
 >i 
 
 J 
 
 'c 
 
 « 'S ~ 
 
 p 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 1 
 
 
 ^ a 
 
 3 p 
 
 S 
 
 U 
 
 11 
 n 
 
 si 
 
 
 3 ^ 
 
 1 i ' 
 
 ■^ ..5 . •, 
 
 "'/: — 
 
 a, 
 y 
 
 r '^ t ■;= 
 
 5 o 
 
 JI 3 o 
 
 'f. Iz *Z Z- 
 
 - = '^ 'J 
 
 s 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 •/- - ■/: 
 ■^ = '^ 
 
 2 
 
 ■^ ~ '■"■- i' 
 
 m 
 
 t^ S 3 
 
 5 
 
 5 ?/. 
 
 ^^ 
 *" z C 
 
 t- > *i 
 
 
 ^H 
 
 H 
 
 ■1 M 
 
 w 
 
 H 
 
 !*• 
 
 i f-^ 
 
 fcn 
 
 .ja 
 
 4i 
 
 ^ 
 
 cl 
 
 h- 
 
 Ml/3 
 
 05 
 
 c? 
 
 •1 
 
 in 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 a 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 ' 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 ; ; ; 
 
 ; 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 ; 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ? n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 •3 
 
 •s 
 
 1i 
 
 EC 
 
 - 
 
 /; * 
 
 a • 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 1 
 
 3 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 hi 1 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 =3 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 ••2 
 
 1! 
 
 
 h 
 
 
 a 
 
 hi 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 b-4 
 
 M 
 
 ■y 
 
 
 
 
 si i 
 
 a 1 
 
 
 
 b 
 
 
 . 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 'A 
 
 3 
 
 H 
 
 ' 
 
 i s 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 
 •3 "3 d 
 
 
 S 
 
 p: 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 eg 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 S 
 
 
 g £ 
 
 ^ 
 
 S 
 
 ~1 
 
 i 3 
 
 
 1 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 S 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 -1 iH 
 
 
 
 1-^ 
 
 
 
 
 t-ll-1 11 
 
 rS 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
-- 
 
 < 
 
 
 agent's report. 
 
 187 
 
 
 %<i. 
 
 r'. 
 
 o 
 
 T-. ^ o5 
 
 
 '33 
 
 ,2 
 
 g 
 
 
 ■rest.' 
 
 1 
 
 s § = 
 
 
 . -** 
 
 O 7> to 
 
 d 
 
 
 '<J — r! 
 
 
 
 - ' 1 I ' I i 
 
 
 2 ' 
 
 I ^ 
 
 '•" 1 1 lilt 
 
 riS n -- 
 
 •"^ , 
 
 h 
 
 
 •■/,» 
 
 
 : S. 
 
 - ' J I'll 
 
 
 S ' 
 
 •^ • • 1 . . I 
 
 • .— 
 
 ,-** . 
 
 I "^ 
 
 = 3 
 
 C ts 
 
 s 
 
 § 
 
 §? 
 
 §2 
 
 
 o 
 
 Hi" 
 
 sf 
 
 ef 
 
 1.-;' ^f 
 
 
 a 
 
 1 c 
 
 
 - ^ 
 
 
 
 a; 
 
 : D 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 -3 
 
 3 1^ 
 
 
 <1 
 
 
 
 : '^ 
 
 » 
 
 ^ C/J 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 rS 
 
 1 
 
 n 
 
 
 ta 
 
 1 
 
 ffi 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 '/J 
 
 
 — 
 
 , X 
 
 
 5 3 
 
 » a 
 
 'i ^ 
 
 'iiUi 
 
 i so 
 K C- Ji. i ^ 
 
 :< 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 "** 
 
 -1 
 
 : X 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 f— 
 
 T. 
 
 ■■^ 
 
 x: 
 
 
 C 
 
 ?; 
 
 
 ; ^ 
 
 ,— 
 
 . ^ 
 
 — 
 
 * 
 
 ,^ 
 
 ■y. 
 
 " 
 
 — 
 
 _ 
 
 p; 
 
 
 ■|. 5 
 
 W. 
 
 ^' 
 
 J 
 
 r 
 
 *^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 7J 
 
 
 t/: 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 . a 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 ^c 
 
 i; 
 
 S§3 
 
 3 
 
 
 1 
 
 5^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • ~ " ■ ■ -- 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 '^^ 
 
 ""-'"* — 
 
 
 ■> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 ' J 
 
 
 
 C 3 
 
 , 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 e = 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 • • 
 
 
 
 O-r 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 -r 
 
 o 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '" ,- 
 
 , 
 
 
 -r 
 
 r.} 
 
 -^ 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 o c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O --0 
 
 
 
 CI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 • ' 
 
 
 
 «- -o 
 
 
 
 
 ii.'i 
 
 o 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 t-i 
 
 O .V 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 ; j 
 
 
 
 -" 
 
 1 
 
 
 x" 
 
 c-T 
 
 L"^ 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t-. ij; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 .■- 
 
 
 
 -\ ' ^—~ 
 
 —■-.-_ 
 
 
 
 
 ■ ■ 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 \ 
 
 
 ■X ■ 
 
 X — 
 
 5> 
 
 
 ' 6 
 
 
 
 ; * 
 
 i 
 
 
 *c 
 
 .3^ 
 
 
 
 >• 
 
 
 ei 
 
 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 
 c: 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 ^6 
 
 ©"a 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 o o 
 
 6 
 O 
 
 
 1—1 1— 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 /. 
 
 
 Ph 
 
 O 
 -1* 
 
 
 >;=H 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 >5 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 V 
 
 
 — 'I 
 
 
 (?(•»< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,. 
 
 I* 
 
 
 
 'T^ 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 01 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ oj 
 
 
 to CO 
 
 
 
 to -o 
 
 '~o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cc 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 00 ,-u 
 
 
 
 rx; 1) 
 
 i> 
 
 
 ■X' 
 
 nii 
 
 
 
 ■Jj 
 
 
 >x; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f fH 
 
 
 
 
 i-< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 r- 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 P- 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 7J 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 t-H -— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t— 
 
 St 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Is 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 )^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 = 
 
 X 
 
 — • 
 
 ? 
 
 ■ ?- 
 
 = 15 
 
 7? ^ 
 
 ■= 
 
 
 c; s ?; 
 
 c 
 
 X 
 
 5 
 
 z^ 
 
 " X 
 
 /' 
 
 r 
 
 -• y^'r 
 
 T. 
 
 ■r 
 
 
 
 - i— ? 
 
 r. 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^"5 
 = ■>: 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 ^'5 
 
 1/: . 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 c 
 
 5 
 
 ;3 
 
 >3 
 
 .Ex 
 
 ^ 
 
 - 
 
 
 "5 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 7 
 
 
 ^ 1-5 5 
 
 - 
 
 z 
 
 ilT' 
 
 *" 
 
 = 
 
 ^^ 
 
 > , 
 
 h-- , 
 
 
 C 
 
 ■^- Ui — 
 
 
 -) 
 
 ? 
 
 r 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 'S 
 
 — 
 
 s'^ — 
 
 2 
 
 S'/- 
 
 C i 
 
 
 'f 
 
 -r - a 
 
 ^ ^- ♦- 
 
 
 
 z -^ -»" 
 
 ■■^ ~ = 
 
 
 : .-- X 
 : X 
 
 -.5 
 
 
 X i' - r ? 
 
 
 
 ■/". C — -— 
 
 
 S w - •^ 
 
 i'-ii-: 
 
 
 
 X ? X X ■_ 
 
 -t.^ ^ — 
 
 
 * M O H 
 
 ='■? 1 i '^ S " -J S "T = S '5 3 3 1 
 
 *: ?r -'• £ X i: -t a "S 5 " - w, . "£: T = --,•:- ,j •/; r - ?■■ 
 
 
 
 i: .S 5 
 
 j= 5;^ a 
 w M 1] 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 1^ t: 
 
 P? 
 
 CD 
 
 ^ -H 
 
 V'^.'^ 
 
 K\\ 
 
 1^ 
 
ft;: 
 
 
 
 l'|-rtj-kliJi 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 188 
 
 o 
 I 
 
 a 
 *) 
 
 <3 
 
 
 S 
 
 •2 
 3 
 
 "^ 
 
 V5 
 
 AMERICAX-BKITI81I CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 c 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 8 
 do 
 
 a 
 < 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 b 
 1 
 
 
 l- 
 
 00 
 
 
 " 
 
 o 
 
 <1 
 
 S = 
 
 CI 
 
 u 
 J 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 eT 
 
 1 
 
 er 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p2 
 
 fUr 
 
 ^ 
 
 'A*^ 
 
 a 
 >2 
 
 <1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 (. 
 
 
 
 (. 
 
 
 
 -■^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r:3 
 
 t- 
 
 
 (. 
 
 
 
 ■a 
 
 nS 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 •s 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - i» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c: 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 CJ 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 :; 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 * -I 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 !! 
 
 is 
 
 (5 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 (f 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 'e 
 
 
 
 r 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 :§ 
 
 '^ 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 _0 
 
 _o 
 
 _C 
 
 
 
 "S 
 
 _o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 w 
 
 ^ 
 
 1^ 
 
 rH 
 
 5 
 is 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 is 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 <a 
 
 
 
 
 
 *s 
 
 
 5 
 
 < 
 
 
 ■<1 
 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 «1 
 
 5 
 
 -*^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . -4i3 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 4: 
 
 
 42 
 
 -«-> 
 
 4J 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 ■ti 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 ss 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 1> 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 e 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 (- 
 
 ,. 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 S 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 tX ri 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f— ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'J 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 I- 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 u 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 
 b. 
 
 (1 
 
 C -^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Z 'J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 & 
 
 
 M U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • c 
 
 
 
 
 
 •~ 
 
 ^-^ 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 a* 
 
 
 i> a< 
 
 0. 
 
 
 a. 
 
 eu 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 " :d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 <- 
 
 
 1- 
 
 i^ 
 
 i'- 
 
 
 
 r- 
 
 r- 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 i- 
 
 § 
 
 il 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 gg 
 
 
 
 
 
 ih 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 Si 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 !n 
 
 s 
 
 in 
 I'- 
 
 
 
 
 
 -?« 
 
 
 
 Ct 
 
 
 
 
 o o 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 r- 
 
 ■n« 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "sJ 
 
 
 
 •» 
 
 
 
 T- 
 
 
 ?,s 
 
 
 
 
 
 nr. 
 
 
 in 
 
 u 
 
 
 ts 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ^u 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _-, 
 
 § 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ■S-s 
 
 s 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 2 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 1 
 
 I- 
 
 =5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^f 
 
 nf 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «» 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! S3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ;• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^.-5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a' 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 .5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 5i 
 
 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 a 
 
 § 
 
 C3 
 
 .a 
 
 ^ 
 
 > 
 
 1- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 ^5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 If. 
 
 
 r 
 
 •5 
 
 a 
 
 5 
 
 a 
 = 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 
 (i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 
 
 "s 
 
 
 3 
 
 •5 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 S 
 
 
 (jj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r/ 
 
 
 X 7J 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 00 
 
 oc 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 a. 
 
 '^t^ 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 ■H -H 
 
 
 
 
 
 i— 
 
 
 »H 
 
 
 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 -H 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 1-H 
 
 r^ 
 
 f-T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 «"2 
 
 
 
 
 
 If 
 
 e 
 
 
 r 
 
 s 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 c" 
 
 " cT 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 g! 
 
 ►5 
 
 tic 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t. 
 
 
 
 - ii 
 
 
 
 
 
 ;. 
 
 
 >^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 C 
 
 u 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 N 
 
 
 „ :3 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 ?M 
 
 0, 
 
 
 a- 
 
 iU 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 QJ 
 
 V 
 
 
 <1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 g:^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 
 »^ 
 
 < 
 
 
 B 
 
 
 c 
 
 fl 
 
 >^ 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 P 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 C5 
 
 ■4- 
 
 
 1 
 
 X 33 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 1 
 
 
 2 X n 
 
 13 i-S 
 
 c 
 << 
 
 "1 
 
 
 a '^ 
 
 b5 . 
 
 Cm 
 
 1 
 
 ■i; 
 
 
 4. 
 f 
 
 1 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 -, c 
 
 c 
 t 
 c 
 
 I—* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 *3 
 
 5 
 "a 
 
 'a 
 
 "^ r. 
 
 il 
 
 X ■' 
 
 .55 
 
 c 
 
 r 
 
 - a! S .* 
 
 c 
 
 .3: 
 
 6 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 a 
 
 X 
 
 
 ^ " a 
 
 ■11 -i 
 
 .•5 5^ 
 
 
 ti 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 
 2 £ 
 
 ill 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 7- 
 
 = a 
 
 = a 
 
 = a 
 IJ 
 
 :.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ? 
 
 CO 
 
 cr 
 ? 
 
 ^5 
 If 
 
 X 1 
 
 5^ 
 
 f 
 
 a 
 
 «- ." a -' 
 
 2 y 
 
 X 
 
 5 
 1 
 
 if 
 
 *- X S 
 
 = 1 = 
 
 P -'a 
 
 lit 
 
 
 c 
 c 
 
 = 
 
 1? 
 
 7 
 
 "^r 
 
 Mj 
 
 « 
 
 X, 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 ^i 
 
 < y-^ S i 
 
 'C \ 
 
 ■^■s 
 
 a£^ 
 
 xj 
 
 -ij 
 
 -^ 
 
 Si^ 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 Q 
 
 C 
 
 '^ 
 
 P 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 -i f-H 
 
 
 
 
 
 !/ 
 
 
 w 
 
 a 
 
 >^ 
 
 
 H ft 
 
 f* 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 a 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; j' 
 
 rt 
 
 % 
 
 "x 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 s 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 as 
 
 n 
 
 a 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 J 
 i 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 5 JT- 
 
 ^' -r. 
 
 5 
 5 
 
 > 
 
 rr. 
 
 c: 
 
 n 
 
 u 
 
 5 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 ■I. 
 
 . • ^ 
 
 j 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 a 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 £ 
 
 '3 
 
 'a 
 
 B 
 
 H 
 +■ 
 C 
 t 
 
 1 
 c 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 A 
 4 
 
 ii 
 
 1 
 
 1 1 
 
 1. 
 c 
 
 ) 
 •^ 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 b 
 
 B 
 
 a 
 -«1 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 2 
 
 H 
 
 1 
 
 i^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 < 
 
 ss 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 < 
 
 ?{ 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 1 
 
 ? 
 
 ! S? 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 S? 
 
 S? 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f- 
 
 1 
 
 f 
 
 ■^ ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 »■ 
 
 4 
 
 »H 
 
 IH 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 < T* 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 »-• 
 
 
 13 
 
 St 
 
 C8 
 
 c 
 
 c3 
 
 c 
 
 =■3 
 

 9- 
 
 a 
 S 
 u 
 o 
 
 P< 
 
 
 I* 
 
 1 
 (5 
 
 a 
 s 
 
 t 
 
 >^ 
 
 o 
 i 
 
 s 
 s 
 
 73 
 
 § 
 
 B ? = h.-S 
 "■•i- '^'i^ = -• " 
 
 ,? £S = £ 3 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 C3 M 
 
 a 
 
 i? 
 
 
 Ei 
 
 C3 
 
 AGENT 
 
 s 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 cf 
 
 i 
 
 
 ?r 
 
 s 
 
 
 '7J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — • 
 
 ^ 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 •7 
 
 ^4 
 
 1^ 
 
 s 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 P. 
 
 S 
 
 (3^ 
 
 3 
 
 ■^ 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 ^ 
 
 b. 
 
 h 
 
 ^ 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 
 > 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 
 
 s 
 
 s§ 
 
 gs 
 
 s 
 
 g 
 
 i 
 
 §il 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 <= \n 51 51 
 
 
 
 C 2 
 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 -^■s 
 
 •SrS 
 
 « s 
 
 a « 
 
 « 2 
 
 ej >> 
 
 11 
 
 £3 
 
 o n 
 
 «; ,-: — 
 
 "SI I 
 
 ^- .SI? 
 
 I 35 
 
 n r 
 
 c"*t.5 
 
 O 
 
 
 ^-^ ^1 -^r 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 '3 
 
 <_ s 
 
 5P. 
 
 S 
 
 
 :> 6 9 O 
 
 c 3 Ti _ _ 
 
 C. O I'' O 3 
 
 CO O 3 M 
 
 '5 ESi3 
 
 ; = -r c i"5 7- •:i Ti 
 
 ►? 
 
 <^ 
 
 s 
 a 
 
 1-5 
 
 
 ! X S 
 
 n a 
 
 
 «2 
 tt-- 
 
 = a 
 
 ia 
 
 t3 
 
 
 e i 
 
 
 C 
 
 5 n.S :, 5 - 
 
 — C a r-*'- 
 
 
 a 
 o _ 
 
 ^ a 
 
 3.Si2 ? 
 
 
 
 
 ~ S r' - 
 
 *; 50 
 
 a 
 
 S a- 
 
 £ -f 
 
 - - it .. 
 
 as 
 
 ^ .'2 
 
 
 
 .^u 
 
 
 ;3 J ? = a--c-j "all 
 
 ^. — ' ^ rr T! T- -* 
 
 — X 
 
 ; -^ -^ r. -r-r- ■ 
 
 a*^ **! :; -r' 
 
 a '^ ' 3 ' 
 
 a <5 
 
 -- i * =^ - si- £ — ?£ " 
 
 i 5 3 t; •« E . a - z — 
 
 .'■££- „i-.2 = -;" - 
 
 a 4-> 
 
 1 i 3 
 
 ,a a 
 
 1 1 
 
 CO,- 
 
 189 
 
 O 3 
 
 
 ^a 
 
 M 
 
 5:' !2!§ 
 
 Tj a. od 
 
 
 a 
 
 ■a ti^^ - 
 
 s y 
 
 » 
 
 ■o 
 
 
 
 O 
 1-5 
 
 H 
 
 ' aa 
 a-'.?' g 
 
 ee a 
 
 — a 
 
 ^ P a sJ 
 P5««Jt.2 
 
 sy 
 
 •^ (._, a g 
 
 1=1-5 
 -"I 
 
 s^^-s 
 
 
 
 I 
 ■a 
 
 n 
 
 .a 
 
 o 
 
 £ 
 
 R 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 
 w 
 
 
 P4 
 
 a 
 
 
 V 
 
 ^ 
 
 w 
 
 "3^ 
 
 H» 
 
 P e 
 
 a 
 
 fats 
 
 Ja 
 
 B! ** 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 
 <-i 
 
 s 
 
 
 i 
 
190 
 
 AMEUICAX-BRITISII CLAIMS COMMISSIOX. 
 
 i 
 
 W' 
 
 
 a 
 o 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 re 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -2 
 
 t! 
 
 
 T. ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iJ 
 
 
 
 
 .E ^ 
 
 Im 
 
 1- 
 
 
 >Z~ ^ 
 
 
 iJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 
 
 
 
 **» 
 
 *'* *■" — 
 
 <-* 
 
 ^" 
 
 
 (» 
 
 ■■s 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 r-> 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 l-H 
 
 I'- 
 
 
 
 V " ^ 
 
 ■1 
 
 M 
 
 
 ' "i 
 
 % 
 
 p" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /, 
 
 -- 
 
 
 ?" 
 
 
 2^ 
 
 / 
 
 
 _' 
 
 c» 5 'Zi 
 
 5 
 
 :-' 
 
 
 rr "^ ** 
 
 tlispus 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i-^ 
 
 1- 
 
 
 
 
 
 ir 
 
 
 •f 
 
 " ^' T 
 
 I:-i 
 
 :'?' 
 
 
 
 ^ ^ Ij 
 
 U 
 
 t> 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 
 l^ 
 
 
 
 "T 
 
 '^^ 
 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 -— 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 '^ — . " - 
 
 -' b 
 
 L. 
 
 
 «- * v 
 
 c 
 
 b 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 ll 
 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 V 
 
 
 3; 
 
 ? 5 r^" 
 
 
 
 7 r -H 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 P-; 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 ^- 
 
 , * 
 
 
 
 ^.i-^ 
 
 -•'* 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ;^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 *' ""^ 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 > c 
 
 b< 
 
 
 *^ T" r 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 ■/' 
 
 '■/. 
 
 
 •J 
 
 
 •? 
 
 i| 
 
 
 
 5 7;=' 
 
 5 is 
 
 is 
 
 
 .i ■§ ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .<; 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 -fl 
 
 1— ( 
 
 
 3 
 
 55 ' 
 
 << 
 
 <^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 ', 
 
 ; 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 oa 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 4j ^ 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ti 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 \ 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 1 
 
 ) 
 
 
 ' 
 
 *2 ■*-* 
 
 
 
 
 
 U 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 % 
 
 
 "T 
 
 
 a 
 
 » 
 
 
 t 
 
 c: 3 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t^ cj 
 
 
 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 • 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 .M 
 
 • 
 
 
 * 
 
 F— — 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *fy 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H^ :j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 ; 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^-^ 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 ; 
 
 <*J 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 ;_, 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 XI 
 
 •o 
 
 
 o 
 
 * ^ 
 
 2 
 
 M 
 
 
 *-4 
 
 3^ 
 
 1- 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 It 
 
 5 
 
 
 !:1 
 
 
 n 
 1- 
 
 ■CI 
 1- 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 1.-5 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 rr 
 
 
 
 
 
 L-^ 
 
 
 M 
 
 Cl 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^- -H 
 
 i;i 
 
 tC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ~ « 
 
 <^ 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 p^ 
 
 
 ■n* 
 
 
 tH 
 
 t- 
 
 
 *l 
 
 §■' 
 
 n 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 9 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ,_ 
 
 
 ._ 
 
 
 ^-■w- 
 
 
 , ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <fr 
 
 
 
 
 
 s-S 
 
 S 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 
 s 
 
 S 
 
 S 
 
 1 
 
 8Si 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ; 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 H '^ 
 
 12 
 
 S2 
 
 
 ?. 
 
 
 § 
 
 ■ 
 
 §§ 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 
 ; 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 £'5 
 
 t— 1 
 
 o 
 
 CI 
 
 
 o 
 
 Tl 
 
 o 
 
 I 
 
 w t" 
 
 1.' 
 
 
 t 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■< - 
 
 
 If! 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 f-i 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •'A» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 '; 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 g* 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 1 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 >. 
 
 
 '. 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 p 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 ; 
 
 ^ 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 r1 
 
 
 w 
 
 rt? 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 ; 
 
 1 
 
 \ . 
 
 ; 
 
 s 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 '. 
 
 ■£ 
 
 
 >1 
 
 
 i 
 
 >; 
 
 
 a" 
 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 fe 
 
 t 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 rj 
 
 5 
 
 y^ 
 
 " 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 It 
 
 
 y2 
 
 
 ■= 
 
 f 
 
 .5 
 
 ; 
 
 "o? 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 m 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 5| 
 
 t5 
 
 fti 
 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 c; 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 \ 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^1 
 
 if 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 : 
 
 ^; 
 
 5 
 
 i. 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 n 
 
 >^;> 
 
 >*5 
 
 »-H 
 
 — 
 
 « 
 
 
 ~'tf 
 
 \ 
 
 'u 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 ¥ 
 
 u 
 
 'k 
 
 '5 
 
 
 n 
 
 C3 
 
 
 
 U3 O 
 
 IS 
 
 ti 
 
 
 
 oo 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 .X 
 
 ■■/J 
 
 
 VJ 
 
 vj 
 
 (T 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 OO 
 
 
 x 
 
 00 T) 
 
 00 
 
 X' 
 
 
 X 
 
 c 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ' 
 
 '■' 
 
 
 T-" 
 
 »-f 
 
 
 1-H 
 
 l-H 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 rH 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 fH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 *■• 
 
 SJ 
 
 I" 
 
 ' 
 
 o" 
 
 
 rn" 
 
 f 
 
 
 r 
 
 f 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 f 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 r 
 
 L'^n 
 
 CfJ 
 
 f 
 
 
 -f" 
 
 ■s 
 
 1 
 
 • 
 
 ff( 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 . 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 -H 
 
 
 1 
 
 Cl^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 St 
 
 ? 
 
 1' 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■i 
 
 
 t4 
 
 
 th 
 
 a 
 <1 
 
 II 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 •is rt 
 
 T. 
 
 6 
 'id 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 
 r. 
 
 c: 
 
 >j 
 
 
 C" 
 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 if 
 
 ■i « 
 
 P oa 
 ^•1 
 
 
 a 
 
 r* ■ 
 
 a 5 
 
 i 
 
 z> 
 
 'r "3 
 
 Character of claim. 
 
 ll 
 
 is X 
 c - 
 
 |g 
 1^ 
 
 3: 
 1 
 
 c 
 c 
 r. 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 a; 
 1 
 
 'a 
 
 r— 
 J 
 
 « ^ X 
 
 III 
 
 S 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 
 3 
 
 E 
 
 < z 
 r. c 
 
 ■3 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 istC E 
 
 1- r 
 
 -• ? 
 
 .5 
 
 1 
 If 
 
 S 
 a 
 
 ■2 w -J •:' 
 
 c -; 1- a 
 
 to ci a i< 
 
 "l: — S S ^ 
 
 2i 
 
 u 
 
 a -t 
 
 ii 
 
 u 
 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 .2 
 
 — in 
 
 1| 
 
 S =» 
 
 .SO 
 • °"* ^ « 
 
 ipl 
 
 
 l§ 
 
 t^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 d5 
 
 •5 
 
 == 
 
 S 
 
 ^? 
 
 ^ 
 
 P 
 
 1 » 
 
 5 
 
 
 M 
 
 HlO 
 
 a "■ 
 
 "6 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "T 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 c" 
 
 i< 
 
 
 :^2 
 
 ^•- J.- 
 
 a 
 
 
 ; 
 
 1 
 
 "3 
 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 « 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 > 
 
 ■) 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 .J3 
 11 
 
 =^1 
 
 H a 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 a 
 
 
 '3 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 p 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 T 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 "E 
 
 ►? 
 
 d 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 <1 
 
 5 
 
 ^ C «c 
 
 ill 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 
 5 
 
 o 
 
 31 
 B 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 c> 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 fM 
 
 c 
 
 J 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 O 
 
 
 s 
 
 r- TO 
 
 SJ 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^__, 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 ifS 
 
 .'.-5 
 
 u- 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 w 
 
 o 
 
 
 irs lo 
 
 lo 
 
 to 
 
 
 «o 
 
 iH 
 
 
 1H 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^4 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 fi 
 
 iH 
 
 
 ph 
 
 1-^ p^ 
 
 iH 
 
 IH 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 3 
 'J 
 

 a 
 c 
 
 a; 
 
 -r 
 
 t5| 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 g 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 il 
 
 a 
 
 ■< 
 
 o 
 
 
 AGENT S RKI'OK'I' 
 
 191 
 
 d 
 
 :^ i'? ',• 
 
 C i _- ^ 
 
 M ^ i 
 
 •/ -^ 
 
 n ~> ?• '% J"'-,- 7•,^' 
 
 - i -. •=■• = ". =1 
 
 
 -.t 
 
 — F— *■/.► 
 
 n 
 
 1 
 
 I •§! ^S if^ 
 
 ~ « ./;. •/, «.■ ». a. _ 
 
 V. > 
 
 S._i "> 
 
 J J ^ J .Z^?> bis 
 
 — o 
 
 i ^ 
 
 in .- o 
 
 o R 
 cf -v 
 
 
 ^ I. 
 1.-: •*! 
 
 
 O ; 
 
 'r.l..:i 
 
 ■=5 
 
 ■7J 
 
 :?3 
 
 M 
 
 X 
 
 ><; 
 
 ?< 
 
 ■/: 
 
 >i 
 
 
 -sj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r; 
 
 
 a 
 
 s 
 
 L' 
 
 ^ 
 
 C P-A 
 
 y. 
 
 iA 
 
 ►^ 
 
 
 ;^ 
 
 'J- ^ 
 
 •^^i 
 
 b 
 
 
 
 ;§ 
 
 i*^ 
 
 00 'Xi 
 
 :3; r r 
 
 
 
 
 "?> 
 
 
 
 
 
 •J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '-0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JU 
 
 K 
 
 K 
 
 7J 
 
 ■/- 
 
 ti 
 
 'jj 
 
 7) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •-« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'i\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ::( 
 
 \ 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 tI 
 
 1 
 
 c ■:• ^' ^- .i S.=, fc-? i 
 
 "a ■ 
 
 
 •- -^ 
 
 •: ;-■'= = = 
 
 t > 7! 
 
 ,^S" 
 
 £ ; ;^ ? ^ = i -2 A ?: i ? -r -3 ?; ? T- .7 >.!■ T- - i i- ? ^, = i* ^. .' >, 
 
 ai •i'i 7. i ■?*.•" = IT X i -JS Z ." X X -A ■= E < X x ^ c S x i; "= i "3 -=3 
 
 
 y. ^ a J 
 
 5 a I 
 
 
 
 '3 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 
 d 
 
 fe 
 c 
 
 
 P 
 
 cS 
 
 
 T 
 
 
 t != 
 
 tii "^ 
 
 W !Srr.-^ 
 
 <i i.S 
 
 
 
 r^ b.-= 
 
 as •= = 2 
 
 n Pi^ 
 
 
 «•=: 
 
 HM 
 
 fa 
 
 'A 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 
 »< e« p •» lo o 
 
 t-s-^ 
 
 e 
 
 O 1-5 
 
 2 I 
 
 as 
 
 ;&!"• 
 
192 
 
 AMKRICAN-HRITISII CLAIMS COMMLSSIOX. 
 
 \ > ■ 
 
 
 I !:«;, 
 
 a 
 a 
 _c 
 -*- 
 c 
 c 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 a 
 
 "&» 
 
 C<3 
 
 
 si 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 rf 
 
 
 'li 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3f 
 
 J5 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 •«! 
 
 
 Cm 
 
 O 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 a 
 
 
 ©- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2* 
 
 O 
 
 'A 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 l« 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 sf 
 
 
 I'* 
 
 
 rri 
 
 
 :|-? 
 
 "Z 1^ 
 
 
 a 
 
 •-5 
 
 
 
 
 ^1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 B 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 fe 
 
 
 a. 
 'J; 
 
 If 
 
 
 fi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 •T- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 ■3 
 1$ 
 
 li2 
 
 7.' 
 
 ^ 
 
 C 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 .2-3 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 is 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 r. 
 
 
 
 
 Ml 
 c 3 
 
 'P.l 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 h^ 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 •11 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 3 
 
 i'* 
 
 <^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 v^ 
 
 ~2^ 
 
 _, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «j 
 
 
 5ji~ 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 I 
 
 JtJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■;? : 
 
 '« *r 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 oS 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 : 
 
 
 
 uf 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4»» 
 
 
 
 
 
 -«.> 
 
 
 -w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t- — 
 
 1 
 
 (IJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 «j 
 
 
 VI 
 
 
 ;.* 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■S ; 
 
 s3 
 
 :* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 tr 
 «) 
 
 
 (- 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -3 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 •3 ; 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0. 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 •C 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 << 
 
 
 
 
 
 < : 
 
 •M 
 
 § 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 S 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 = 5 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 s 
 
 S 
 
 rii 
 
 ?: » 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 ■O 
 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 -I* 
 
 c:g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 ~~" 
 
 """ 
 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 
 _ *"" 
 
 
 "~ 
 
 ~ 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 *"■ 
 
 "■ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 s 5 
 
 
 ; 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 
 1.-3 
 
 g 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 8 ~~ 
 
 
 s 2" 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 Tl 
 
 o 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1-M 
 
 
 1- 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 CI •»• 
 
 
 c.r 
 
 
 ; 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 i- 
 
 s 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 ^ M. 
 
 
 5 ?3 
 
 
 \ 
 
 ?i 
 
 
 
 
 '<r" 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 t" 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 m" 
 
 
 c-T t-^ 
 
 
 <;" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 t> 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I I 
 
 
 i? 
 
 T~ 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 a 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ i 
 
 ; ; 
 
 
 ■** 
 
 
 iii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C3 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 1^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ » 
 
 1 • 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 -^ 
 
 S 
 ej . 
 
 
 o n 
 
 '7* ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 _a 
 '3 .; 
 
 If 
 
 A 
 
 ■*-» 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 - 3 
 « 
 
 fr4 
 
 ■A 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 2 : 
 ^ • 
 
 3 1 
 
 j: : 
 X ; 
 
 n 2 
 a a 
 
 
 ^> 
 
 ?; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 -• 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 A 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 "o 
 
 
 i = 
 
 
 <1 
 
 b 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >^ 
 
 
 £h 
 
 
 
 
 J3 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 -J 
 
 ^ : 
 
 
 
 71 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 :; 
 
 
 3 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 
 ~2 
 
 S3 
 
 
 
 
 1.1 
 
 ^ : 
 
 33 
 
 
 X TJ 
 
 'TD 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '% 
 
 
 'XI 
 
 cu 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ru 
 
 
 7. XJ 
 
 q 
 
 ■ « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1H 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 iH 
 
 
 
 
 •-« 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 
 i-( 
 
 '7 ■ '• 
 
 
 11 
 
 r 
 
 2^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 r 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 r r 
 
 
 
 
 
 t< . 
 
 2-^ ; 
 
 ^J 
 
 > 
 
 
 ^»-f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .1-* 1 
 
 
 r* 
 
 i'i 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <3 
 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 >5 
 
 en 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c; 
 
 cT - 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ? "^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 r*» 
 
 ■3 
 
 a 
 
 , — 
 
 cS 
 
 13 
 it 
 
 t} 
 
 y 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 1 .= = 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 ^3 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 « 
 
 
 ^1l 
 
 
 ? 3 
 
 
 
 is 
 
 a 
 
 t^ — 
 
 T. *" 
 
 ■Ji = 
 
 -3,i 
 
 a 5 
 
 li 
 
 a c 
 
 ■*j - 
 10 Z 
 
 ♦-• 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 .2 
 
 a a 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 <« 
 s 
 
 » 
 
 2 
 
 ^^ 1 
 
 ^■" 1 
 
 — X a . 
 
 S3 -^-^ 
 
 s = s 
 
 X 
 
 i-^ 1-^ N 
 II :^l i% 
 «^ .^r' 1^ 
 
 s>> ^.2 ,-f^ 
 
 !l il Ji 
 
 S £ f ^ t" 
 3 5'=3 ba'*! = '3 
 
 a 
 -^ 
 
 <s 
 
 ■^ -^ T. 
 
 ill 
 
 il 
 
 2 s 
 
 4) >i 
 
 - 2 
 
 if 
 
 a 
 '^ 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 = 
 
 -3 
 
 a 
 
 1 -55 
 
 a ii" :-■ 
 
 . r .%" 
 
 '-Mil 
 
 » S X - _- 
 
 i w i* x" 9 
 
 a 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 il 
 
 •if ^ 
 5x 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 c^ 
 
 C 
 
 'f 
 
 •*- 
 
 c 
 
 £ 
 
 a 
 
 X 
 
 2 
 
 , '=f^» = 2_;?'3 
 
 
 t> 
 
 rH 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 1—1 
 
 C-) 
 
 
 ;; 
 
 
 f-1 
 
 1 
 
 
 -iS 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 Ph 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 ;:5 
 
 ^v 
 
 ■4J 
 
 
 S 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 .2 
 
 ^ 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 e 
 
 00 
 
 5 
 
 a 
 
 y^ 
 
 
 d 
 
 Cl 
 
 ;^ 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 a 
 
 ** 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ! a 
 
 ij 1 ' • 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 iiii 
 
 
 S3 a i^VH 
 
 5"3 2 3 5 
 
 S « a .s - . - 
 
 « J3 3.4 
 
 (^ 
 
 fe ►S.i^ 
 
 m 
 
 
 ';5 3 stp N 
 
 ■■ a .• X 
 5 ■*^ a a 
 
 1^ :=;» 
 
 ,2 r f^"^ 
 
 •E sag' 5:2 
 
 S A 
 
 S = aM = 
 
 c — 
 
AGKNT S KKi'OKT. 
 
 ll»3 
 
 > . -• r 
 
 z>. 7-- 
 
 i I ,;■,■/■- 
 
 v. . H " rj ri i- - -| 
 
 — i. ™ - ^ I * •-• '-^ 
 
 ^ ti^ y.^ -■ 5 3 f- 
 
 5 _ ^ -3 2 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 1? 
 
 
 J,: 
 
 tt"3 ,:^ 
 on fc:.» 
 
 s 
 
 
 ■ -. i m .-rj o 
 
 "^ ■ _ 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 ;« 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 • 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 :C 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■/, 
 
 7. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ f- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 " *A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • M 
 
 
 
 
 ' a 
 
 .S 
 
 .5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^- ii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 -< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ""c 
 
 
 
 :<) 
 
 <1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 9 
 
 X 
 
 5 
 
 1" 
 
 § 
 
 ^ ,T 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■S 
 
 
 Ti 
 
 ? i 
 
 r^ 
 
 ._- 
 
 z> 
 
 — 
 
 ", 7J 
 
 itj 
 
 ^ 
 
 /j 
 
 -*• 
 
 r. 
 
 -r 
 
 r* 
 
 « 
 
 c o 
 
 1- 
 
 \Z 
 
 
 
 
 '<j 
 
 I'i 
 
 
 r; 1 
 
 «j 
 
 
 
 — f 
 
 
 
 .•nr 
 
 a f 
 
 
 O 7J 
 
 
 i.T ■/.' 
 
 
 
 
 C-. 1' 
 
 
 rt ; 
 
 
 h^ • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 • 
 
 ; cj 
 
 Car 
 
 rt;3 
 
 ^3 
 
 «M , 
 
 C 13 
 
 ■5 : 
 
 It 
 
 Pari 
 
 1^ 
 
 75 ;j 
 
 ■^ ; 
 
 C^ -1< 
 
 « o 
 
 , 
 
 X IJ 
 
 03 
 
 
 K .5 = S i* 
 
 ' "^ ■*-* 
 
 3.- 
 
 — □ 
 . - '■^ 
 
 ■'3 
 
 ■i^ U> = i n a 
 I - Ja ? ;i.i. 
 : ^ ^ -t -- a _a 
 
 ' o 
 
 J i, :i tci 
 
 a s a 
 
 ■^ . 3> 
 
 J2S.:5 
 
 t^-S 
 
 f^ ^ji 
 
 .2:^ 
 
 .a 3 
 
 c«-S - 
 
 S^ 
 
 o:a S 
 
 0! 3 
 
 aa?< 
 
 I2 
 
 
 
 S '^ *^ 
 
 
 J SM 
 
 HJ? 
 
 H 
 
 ■ a 'r"^ ..•■•- - 
 
 I r, « 
 
 2 S '■s 
 
 ^- = s 
 
 ' a 3 '-^'X*'' ^ ^ '-■5 *■ 
 • ■-' '^ ; > > r h 'H c 
 
 IhJ <;:j>'./'h 
 
 : ; 7 ^ '"^ ^ 
 
 •'■ ' ' — s •/ 1; • ^ 
 S ; : rJ=i.-^ 5^ •^■ 
 
 U*i O M 
 
 ! r; ct r: -t* r? '?i '* "J i' 
 r/j r/. 7.' y. ij Vj f- jj -jj 
 
 £'■■1 S 
 
 t- .. d - J J; a 
 
 
 l-^^.X 
 
 x> 7j v.; /, ju 
 
 
 i 5 
 
 
 .'J -a^ •^-=- 
 
 ^ ;!= „^. Tl":" ^11 '5 I i J.^- ^> ^- ■•^^■^•^^■J a >. 
 
 3 ^'a ^-S -=_ c-/.- ^ 2 - 
 
 
 ''■■^ i "a ^ i a _• ■•'• .- a 
 
 
 ~ 7 
 
 2,2 r ^i ? 5 5 ir-.S r j:- •- •■ £ -^ .-r a ir- -■^ i-a 
 
 ■aH" 5'r'S"^ i'<a:S'^-'-'' ?^ ?~'S<'i!"''. -a^*- ..> ... _- „. 
 
 5 J; '^ ^ ^ -a --.T- = ■/: c a -5: = K -1 .- 5 < -5 a 3 -Jc ? X ^'- ^ = ^5 < s i < J-.' L' — i. j:'A 3 a _ 
 
 o u u X u o 
 
 l-i x 1- — - 
 
 : = ! 1 
 
 ; 
 
 ; 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •r ;j 
 
 ttrr; = 
 
 ^ 
 
 ? ii 
 
 o 
 
 U 3 " .S.I « ,.^ •'; 
 
 ,a 
 H 
 
 •^ Sa . 
 i-i - I- -Id 
 
 ^ III 
 
 1-t ,^ TM rH p^ CT Cf CI CI CI C» 
 
 
 
 C „ ••-• — Ij 
 
 c 
 
 lT — r i^ — 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 illirs 
 
 
 
 ci :: ? ;; r-i ;: 
 
 H 
 
 hH 
 
 u 
 
 r* 
 
 &i 
 
 ?x 
 
 ?^ 
 
 to 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 ca; 
 
 
 O 
 
 Xl 
 
 2 
 S 
 
 13 H 
 
 Ml 
 
15 I 
 
 i; U 
 
 104 
 
 ami:ri( ax-huitisii claims commission. 
 
 ! ^iJiii 
 
 M 
 
 'iipi'i; ' 
 
 a 
 
 
 4S 
 
 e 
 
 I 
 
 "ft 
 
 
 S 
 
 5 
 
 s: 
 
 I 
 
 '3 
 
 
 CO 
 
 I 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■s 
 
 S 
 
 w* 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 fe ►^ 
 
 !^ 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 ^4 
 
 ^4 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 •f 
 
 
 ?! 
 
 
 
 
 S !^ 
 
 
 SI 
 
 ^4 
 
 
 «1 
 
 0' 
 
 ©" 
 
 »■ 
 
 
 
 'C 
 
 c 
 -1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 d 
 d 
 
 
 1 a 
 
 •2 
 
 
 •c 
 
 -3 
 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 '5 
 
 7- 
 
 
 
 1! 
 
 A 
 
 it 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 K 
 
 l» 
 
 ti 
 
 
 
 it 
 
 >« 
 
 is 
 
 
 i( 
 
 e 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 
 5r2 
 
 
 
 *— 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 •—1 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 it 
 
 
 5! 
 
 
 1 
 
 5-3 
 p .1 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 
 « 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 e. 
 
 •1 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 >«1 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 a 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4^ 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «i 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■♦- 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 v 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 ll 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 ii 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^1 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (^ - 
 
 (•• ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 o-S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 TS 
 
 
 
 »^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "^ a 
 
 
 "= 3 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "I 
 
 a — 
 
 <) 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 •*j 
 
 § 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 'XJ 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 8 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 3 
 
 *- 
 1- 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 •-< 
 
 *•• 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 «» 
 
 
 !JI 
 
 
 tJ 
 
 
 - :- 
 
 
 n 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^1 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 
 
 /■^.^s.*^ 
 
 1 
 §1 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1- 1- = 
 
 C 1- S 
 
 S 8 
 
 ? 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 s i 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^11 
 
 ~5 
 
 s s 
 
 c 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 i? g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •fl-v 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'It 
 
 - - 
 
 - 
 
 
 L-3 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 •■r ft 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 ; ; ; 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 > > 
 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 
 
 
 fe 
 
 
 
 54 • 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >i 
 
 
 ■ft Tc 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 a 
 H 
 .2" 
 
 
 B 
 
 *n 
 
 
 
 it! 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 V 
 
 
 OS. 5 
 
 -1; 
 
 
 
 1 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ia 
 
 C 
 
 T- 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 * 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 'A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 «a 
 
 335 
 
 s 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 |5 
 
 !S 
 
 3 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 1.1 1.5 
 
 
 ou 
 
 
 ^ '^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 rij-U-K 
 
 
 nr 
 
 
 
 
 QU 
 
 
 
 ru X 
 
 
 
 
 1,-1 
 
 J, a 
 
 
 1-* 
 (4 
 
 
 s 
 
 b 
 
 i-T 
 
 
 r 
 
 1 
 
 1" 
 CI 
 
 
 r 
 
 iT 
 ;- 
 
 ?i 
 
 
 
 
 
 =5 
 
 
 « s 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 ci 
 
 
 
 
 -■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 !? 
 
 
 Ch S. 
 
 
 
 
 rb 
 
 
 ?^ 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 ?^ 
 
 C?>^ 
 
 <H 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 -1 
 
 
 
 
 
 < <. 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 = £ 
 
 ■5 
 
 
 ■♦3 
 
 'C 
 
 i II 
 
 S b'S • 
 
 ^ ■;.> 
 
 1 
 
 ? 
 
 is 
 
 to 
 
 -i-3 
 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 tT > 
 
 '« 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 =^ 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 z. -^ — 
 
 •r. " ^ 
 S t: - 
 
 a 
 
 jr. 
 
 a 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 u! 
 
 c r- 
 
 >i 
 
 
 '5 
 
 ll 
 
 a 
 P 
 
 sX :i 
 
 ■_) 
 
 ^" ~ 
 
 >^ 
 
 c 
 
 r T^^ 
 
 ►3 '-A E :3 
 
 'w' r: T 
 
 5 '^ 
 
 y 
 
 < a 
 r. P 
 
 .-:_, 
 i:'';^ 
 
 I'j 
 
 
 X 
 
 >.l ^ 
 
 o 
 
 r. ^ 
 
 ? 5 
 
 ^- _- 
 
 i 
 '7 
 
 
 
 
 7. 
 
 ■K 
 
 
 
 fill 
 
 
 7. 
 
 - 
 
 < = 
 
 
 ■? a 
 ^'2 
 
 a a 
 
 iii 
 
 B > 
 ■^ -J 
 
 III 
 
 7:* "^ ^ 
 
 ^ "^ •/ 
 
 A a 5 
 
 — " ti 
 
 5 5.^ 
 
 i 
 
 a c '/:.:; 
 
 
 
 J«i 
 
 
 XX-r 
 
 
 ^1 = 
 
 
 W j?l 
 
 Is- 
 
 X i Z 
 
 A .5'^ 
 
 — :; « 
 
 i 
 
 >. 2 5 io 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 Ui 
 
 
 ?5 
 
 
 M 
 
 a 
 
 SiJ^ 
 
 ^. G 
 
 -' 
 
 W 
 
 
 M 
 
 H 
 
 rM 
 
 hi 
 
 
 H M 
 
 C 
 
 
 4^ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 3 
 
 V 
 >) 
 
 
 M 
 
 B 
 
 2 
 
 g "^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 a 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 1' 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 ■= 
 
 1 
 
 m 
 
 la 
 
 
 1 
 
 'a 
 
 3 
 
 M 
 
 
 11 
 
 Pa 
 
 •l-l 
 
 i 
 
 •§ 1 
 i 1 
 
 CO l> 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 'A 
 1 
 
 
 I 
 
 CS 
 
 C 
 c 
 
 
 6 
 "A 
 
 01 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 55 
 
 CI 
 
 00 
 
 o3 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 ?' 
 *» 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 m. 
 
II 
 
 H 
 
 : S 
 
 8 
 
 ; =5 
 
 s 
 
 1 •- 
 
 o 
 
 : cr 
 
 ^ 
 
 • •»• 
 
 SI 
 
 ;i-= -^ J 
 
 AGENTS UKI'OIIT. 
 
 inr> 
 
 ■•••a, 
 
 to 
 r. 
 
 f^d 
 
 - 3 
 
 
 ■tj -N 
 
 
 
 
 11 ?i 
 
 s.r: ij 
 
 
 
 # is-. 
 
 (Jf 
 
 — t? 
 
 
 
 
 t-r-!! 
 
 «l> 
 
 '^■'/5 
 
 l5^ 
 
 1 
 
 T-3 
 
 i» is 
 
 ?.= .- 
 
 "S^ 
 
 : s 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 S 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 Si 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 t-i 
 
 1" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 B" 
 
 
 X 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 U-. r? 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 
 
 • • 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 
 • a ' 
 ■ t ' 
 IH ■ 
 
 : u^ 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 "1 
 
 (^ 
 
 ■♦- 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 ,3 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 k> 
 
 
 
 
 if 
 
 
 : =■-'2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 «-j 
 
 
 
 
 ;^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 M 
 3 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 1^ 
 
 
 ;03 
 
 ;'§i 
 
 
 3 
 
 '0 
 
 
 
 a 
 1 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 ^ ; 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 3X 
 
 £ s" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,^ 
 
 353 
 
 
 •H 
 
 
 
 1* 
 
 
 
 <TI 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 Tl 1 
 
 -H 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 'O 
 
 
 
 CS 
 
 U3 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 
 C£ 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 
 \S , 
 
 XI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 !» 
 
 
 
 
 IS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OD 
 
 5 
 
 
 CIJ . 
 
 -/) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 jy 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *H 
 
 i-( 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 »-i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 SI 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iH 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 .0 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 < 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 
 p \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 a 
 
 7." 
 
 
 1. 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■3 
 
 1 
 
 
 « 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 "3 
 
 35 
 
 ir. X = 
 
 >> 
 
 <; 00" > 
 
 tJL 
 
 ?3 
 
 •n 
 
 
 ■s 
 
 i2 
 
 
 -if 
 
 y 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 UJ 
 
 X 
 
 •: 
 
 S 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 •f 
 
 
 -3 
 
 > 
 
 r 
 
 
 i5 
 
 •A I 
 
 '— - 
 
 r - r- 
 
 
 ^ s 
 ^''~ 
 
 t-"^ 
 
 5 
 
 7: 
 
 P 
 
 fc 
 
 •r 
 
 ? 
 
 ^Is 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 X 
 
 -' 
 
 
 ■Ji 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 /3 - 
 
 > .5 .5 =' 
 
 > 
 1^ 
 
 x * — 
 
 X 
 
 ^ 
 5 
 
 
 ■7 
 
 
 
 r. = 3 
 
 i:?x 
 
 
 — 5 
 'C " 
 
 7 3 
 
 
 'a 
 
 1 
 
 8 ♦^ 
 u a 
 
 X ^ 
 
 ^ 1 
 X E 
 
 it 
 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 7 5 V 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■5 
 
 =' 11 a* 
 
 tl " ;« 
 
 
 
 3 = 
 
 ^ 
 
 5 i l'-I 
 
 
 1^ ti 
 
 b 
 
 
 hi s 
 
 « 
 
 
 : 1 Z 
 
 _, . y 
 
 >5 
 
 3 
 
 
 3 i 
 
 ~ 
 
 != P- 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 w .2 •"* 
 
 5 
 
 r 
 
 C 
 
 ■^ 3 rt 
 x^W 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 CSH 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 t ^ 
 
 u 
 
 
 •— t ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l-H 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 : ; 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 C3 -^ 
 
 ji-i'^ 
 
 ; 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 3 i) 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 h^ 
 
 9 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 Oi 
 
 •ci 
 
 ao 
 
 CS 
 
 a^ £ Ki;S:^ 
 
 a 
 
 W 
 
 W 
 
 M 
 
 « = = — 
 
 
 a i! a c ■: 
 
 5»^ sy^-** 
 
 ta 
 
 iJa 
 
 1 
 
 > 1. 
 
 .1/1 
 
 I .^ r^ 
 
 ■^ ^ 
 
 r{ 
 
 ^ 
 
 SJ 
 
 ^ &i 
 
 Si 
 
lOG 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 rf 
 
 !!' '' 
 
 
 
 CI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 rf 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 bi 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 'C 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 fi 
 
 
 O 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 CI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5f 
 
 
 .2* 
 
 -5 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 SI 
 
 
 *r^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 r3 
 
 '^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 fr4 
 
 .c 
 
 
 
 
 3 > 
 
 1 
 
 
 ! -5 
 
 '«■'" 
 
 is 
 
 1 
 
 fc 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 I? 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 1 s 
 
 
 _._o 
 
 _o 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■a 
 
 fS 
 
 
 ^ E 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^il 
 
 
 
 = i2 
 
 5 
 
 ti 
 
 
 
 il 
 
 1 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 gs 
 
 
 1 
 
 t% 
 
 
 .5 
 
 
 (5<; 
 
 O 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 * • 
 
 
 
 <J 
 
 
 P 
 
 *> 
 
 -^ 
 
 p 
 
 
 ' ■*-- 
 
 -M 
 
 
 
 
 
 /^*-A,^\ 
 
 
 
 
 -t^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 •♦*_: 
 
 • a 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 u 1 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 O 
 
 £^ 
 
 ;5;?s « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^S 
 
 • & 
 
 ■ — 2 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 s ■ 
 
 
 
 
 -t-i 
 
 
 
 =3 
 
 ; 1- 
 
 5 5.5 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 *s ?^ ' 
 
 
 
 
 r— 
 
 
 •2 
 
 
 \< 
 
 <1 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 *^ ; 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 a: 
 
 « 
 
 c o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C-. 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 s 
 
 
 o^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CI 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 1- 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 VJ 
 
 '-n 
 
 
 
 il 
 
 
 
 cr 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -p 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 '^ f5 
 
 o 
 
 c^ 
 
 \ri 
 
 
 
 -J« 
 
 
 
 fc 
 
 3 
 
 
 'Zji 
 
 c' \ 
 
 CO 
 
 ».':r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -rt 
 
 cT 
 
 «" 
 
 ft 
 
 iri — 
 
 <». 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r: 
 
 
 §1. 
 
 -M i; 
 
 »:« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ct/ 'X» 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 .§ 
 
 H 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 U* 
 
 
 V^-v-^ 
 
 
 
 "o 
 
 -*j • 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 : : 
 
 
 j 
 
 j 
 
 
 <u 
 
 c - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1" 
 
 c a 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; ; 
 
 
 ; 
 
 ; 
 
 
 5^ 
 
 = n 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 " t 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 «i 
 
 -^■s 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' ' 
 
 
 * 
 
 ' 
 
 
 •<: 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' ' 
 
 
 ' 
 
 ' 
 
 
 •** 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X) 
 
 
 1 \ 
 
 c3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ', \ 
 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 \ \ 
 
 rK 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J * 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 Si 
 
 o 
 
 j'H 
 
 CI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 : i 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 V> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 h5 
 
 
 
 
 02 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 c5 ; 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 i 
 
 s3 
 
 
 = 1 
 
 < 
 
 JC 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 ^ : 
 
 
 .2 
 
 h-1 
 
 <3 
 
 1 
 
 
 fjr! 
 
 
 i."^ 
 
 CI 
 
 
 
 cc 1 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 - . 
 
 
 
 ti ;= 
 
 
 
 i3 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 •3 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 V, xt 
 
 
 X' 
 
 CtJ 
 
 
 
 '"w ! 
 
 
 ''fj 
 
 .'70 
 
 -r'5 
 
 aD 
 
 c 1 "1 
 
 '" -^i 
 
 1-H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i-i 
 
 c» » 
 
 Z-. 
 
 ^ 1 1:1 1 
 
 •<--^ 
 
 2 1 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 r ; 
 
 
 \ 
 
 r 
 
 
 s 
 
 ^ >« 
 
 5; TX 
 
 T! . 
 
 i'c 
 
 
 
 ■t: ■' 
 
 
 > 
 
 j; 
 
 
 s 
 
 L* ^ 
 
 X ^ 
 
 — ."'i/ 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 M4 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 l^o 
 
 _M^ 
 
 ' ;jM 
 
 -4 
 
 
 
 '-2 ; 
 
 
 'A 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 It ;- 
 
 f-* 
 
 ? 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 -3 • 
 
 
 ' ■'.J^' 
 
 (— 
 
 cT— 5 
 
 
 
 *' i 
 
 a 
 
 -^ 
 
 c; 
 
 
 
 S ; 
 
 
 i-S 
 
 +1 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 >i 
 
 
 rj 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 1- 
 
 
 ■♦.- 
 
 
 ^ i 
 
 P 
 
 
 7: 
 
 
 
 hj 1 
 
 
 ^ s 
 
 h-^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 O) 
 
 >Ti 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 
 >■; t 
 
 
 t^ ^ 
 
 
 III2 
 
 ■it' 
 
 a 
 
 
 u . 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 -= ; 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 rt 
 
 1 3 
 
 C >; 
 
 — 
 
 — ' 
 
 
 
 ^3 ■ 
 
 
 Wi 
 
 t; 2 
 
 K ..- « 
 
 £? 
 
 "3 
 
 >./2 
 
 -4-' B 
 
 n 
 
 >; 
 
 
 
 
 
 C ^ J 
 
 C 3 
 
 c :;— 3 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 •r. i- 
 
 = •'1 
 
 « 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 S| ; 
 
 
 
 ^1 
 
 £-y-= a 
 
 V- 
 
 s 
 
 i >-;^ a-Ji 
 
 l = i 
 
 
 
 P, £ ; 
 
 
 c^ 5 
 
 X 5 
 
 0^ £-5 
 
 ^ ! 
 
 3 
 
 a- 3'H >. 
 
 
 
 
 g T 
 
 
 c :- - 
 
 II 
 
 HP 
 
 00 
 
 1 
 
 
 Pi 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 ;^ 
 
 
 
 a: H 
 
 
 p;"" 
 
 » 
 
 IS 
 
 1 
 
 g 
 
 3 
 
 ■3 3 
 
 
 t 
 
 c 
 
 pi 
 
 u a 
 5^ 
 
 £ 
 
 c 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 C-«a- =.? = 3« 5Z:r-M - 
 
 ■|.ytidj=|ifjll-'i|.|2 
 
 (4 
 
 t 
 
 1 
 
 ^ a' 
 
 ■il 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 J 
 
 i. 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 -5 so SHI 
 
 5^ ^_2 
 
 ■—'7,1:*- 
 
 n 
 
 
 fe<i 
 
 H 
 
 'J 
 
 
 
 r^i 
 
 
 U 
 
 W 
 
 
 a OD 3! 
 
 
 
 ,^ 
 
 r:) 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 t" 
 
 1* 
 
 I 
 
 
 ;2! 
 
 S5?. 
 
 c5 
 
 5 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 CI 
 
 
 •7" 
 CI 
 
a 
 o 
 
 !7 .i 
 
 ^ ** 
 
 CO" CU 
 
 1^ ^ iL 
 
 *• r-r 
 
 O O 
 
 -1 -1 
 
 P2 
 
 AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 Vi 
 u 
 
 i 
 "a 
 
 CD 
 
 (5 
 
 
 
 
 C- IJ -4-1 
 
 197 
 
 
 SI 
 
 a 
 1^ 
 
 t 
 
 c o 
 
 if M 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 .^■^<-\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --'' ,'^-%-^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *^N 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^■-^ 
 
 ^ — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 
 o o -^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c c 
 
 c = 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 O O 'iD 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — — . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 O IT -/J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c; '"• 
 
 c c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ a 
 
 
 O c; T» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f— 1 (- 
 
 — ' — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 O C; rs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r^' —,*■ 
 
 «■» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 T. 
 
 ■X. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cr 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 < : 
 
 c 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 " 
 
 1 1: 
 
 X 
 
 ^ 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 -*- 
 
 
 rt 
 
 3 
 
 rt 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 R 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^ : 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 t* 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 » ^ ; 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 u. 
 
 
 rH 
 
 <3 
 
 
 t" 
 
 
 h- 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 « 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 c- 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 -f 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 c» — 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <= 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 oy 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 
 :» 
 
 
 X X . 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 <i 
 
 
 Ij 
 
 
 
 
 
 cm 
 
 
 
 X /, 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tl 
 
 
 
 ?'" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ftt 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 t- lO . 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 c- 
 
 
 
 
 C t- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 t 
 ^ 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 IS 
 
 ■i 
 
 •3 % ; 
 
 pi 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 V 
 
 •4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 C>5 
 
 X — 
 
 o 
 3 
 
 r 
 
 ^ 
 
 4^ 
 
 'a 
 3 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 i 
 
 
 f 
 
 C5 
 
 X 
 
 ■■:— « • 
 c 1 ^ : 
 ? n "^ • 
 
 c 
 
 t'. 
 
 — ' 
 
 c 
 1 
 
 r 
 
 •J 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 T 
 
 > 
 
 <5 
 
 
 
 13 - 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 *-' -Z ^ 
 
 ■ > rj 
 
 X " 
 
 >. - 
 
 1 
 
 
 U' 
 
 >; 
 
 ^ 
 
 W 
 
 (- 
 
 
 a 
 
 5 
 
 ? 
 
 
 ■f 
 
 ^ 
 
 s — > • 
 
 c 
 
 tc 
 
 *? 
 
 r 
 
 X 
 
 -7 
 
 3 
 V. 
 
 t 
 
 T. Z 
 
 X 
 
 r 
 
 x 
 
 5 
 
 x 
 
 ^•7 
 
 t: ■'■3 
 
 
 = ':-— = a 
 
 -- • -fl s -^ 
 
 
 
 p-H O 
 
 
 
 - v: ^ ; — — — ^ — - .-. 
 
 - ?3 
 
 
 
 
 
 - /. ■ 
 
 J3 
 
 X I- -! 
 
 
 S w 1^ r^ 73 w C 
 
 
 a a 
 c o 
 t. >> i-. 
 +- .— *^ 
 tf. u ^ 
 
 7: 
 
 o 
 
 1-5 
 
 W 
 
 s 
 
 02 
 
 a 
 <1 
 
 a u 
 
 s 
 
 »-5 
 
 g 
 
 ■3 
 
 a 
 
 5 
 
 a 
 
 u a 
 
 eS.„ O 
 
 B pl-5 C I' 
 
 a 
 
 2 
 a 
 
 I 
 
 S 
 
 n 
 
 % 
 
 o »-« 
 
 
 i 
 
 ^ ^ ^ 
 
 
 m 
 
iiwrrr 
 
 «;■■", 
 
 11)8 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 
 o 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 
 S' 
 
 
 ■B 
 
 
 13 
 I 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 O 
 Gt 
 
 K 
 
 -3 
 
 is 
 
 o 
 
 K 
 
 rf 
 
 a 
 
 «- 
 
 00 
 
 S 
 
 I ^ 
 
 a 
 
 « 
 
 o 
 9 
 
 CI 
 
 5 
 
 % 
 
 sS 
 
 o 
 r3 
 
 i CI 
 
 00 ^ 
 
 o 
 5; CI 
 
 ,o 
 
 ^^ 
 
 it 
 
 ^ "^ 5 
 
 e4 
 
 a 
 
 9 
 1-5 
 
 O 
 
 -3 
 
 is 
 
 I- 
 
 00 
 
 "a 
 
 1-3 
 »^ 
 O 
 
 is 
 
 o 
 
 15 
 
 00 
 
 1"" 
 b4 
 
 5 
 
 1 1 
 
u^,, U JJ 
 
 <A 
 
 "- is ;f 
 
 
 C3 
 
 — ■* 
 
 e s 3 -r 
 
 2 5 2 '" 
 
 agent's report. 
 
 
 n 
 
 f? 
 
 (■" 
 
 tt 
 
 IJ 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ■TV' 
 
 M 
 
 = 1 I- 
 
 1-^ — Ci 
 
 "-5 
 
 53 
 
 I: 
 
 o 
 
 :;- -A 
 
 
 if 
 
 <1 
 
 .3 
 
 '- > 
 
 <1 -^ 
 
 
 f2 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 TU •-■ 
 
 C^ — 
 
 
 
 * iJ 
 
 -4-* .^ 
 
 
 < 
 
 i-< 
 
 o 
 
 
 L^ 
 
 C^ 
 
 * 
 
 T 
 
 
 w 
 
 CI 
 
 cT 
 
 -*' 
 
 1.-5 
 
 ■^ 
 
 o — 
 
 c 
 
 a 
 o 
 o 
 
 -3 
 
 n 
 -11 
 
 o 
 
 199 
 
 o 
 
 
 OL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 <1 
 
 ^N 
 
 jg 
 
 ""_ 
 
 
 r- 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ci 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 ^T" 
 
 
 
 •? 
 
 «i» 
 
 S5 
 
 ^ 
 
 ? 
 5 
 
 
 if 
 
 
 3 
 
 •o 
 
 o 
 
 i^ 
 
 a 
 
 h 
 
 
 S 
 ^ 
 
 .3 
 
 !« 
 
 § 
 
 <] 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 ijf 
 
 4' 
 
 
 •y 
 
 "i 
 
 • ; ; 
 
 
 
 is i ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 : '4 -t 
 
 ; : t- -i; 
 
 e 5 ." 
 of X =^ r 
 
 .2 
 
 i 
 
 
 ,2 • 
 
 ^ : 
 
 '^1 5 
 
 
 .s 1. - 
 
 ^1 ^ 
 
 York 
 
 luorus, Mexico. 
 
 ■=■=■5 -J 3 
 
 a: -r, in fci 
 
 >^ 
 
 
 — ' <U 
 
 S^H -1 
 
 «>?; 
 
 5 
 
 'A I 
 
 — 11 1- 
 
 II 
 
 irf'M'-: - 
 
 1.-: M 
 
 rs 
 
 _ 
 
 (D 
 
 r^ 
 
 CI 
 
 *5 
 
 _^ 
 
 CI 
 
 S 
 
 3 
 
 t= ;: 
 
 «5 
 
 •3 i --^ ■■= 
 
 -.5 -o 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 !C 
 
 w 
 
 ^O 
 
 to 
 
 10 
 
 
 CC 
 
 X A. VJ ^' 
 
 ly- ii 
 
 -'AJ 
 
 
 
 Yj 
 
 
 X) 
 
 'IJ 
 
 cu 
 
 
 ■'Li 
 
 ^- ■- — ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 »— < 
 
 
 
 — N 
 
 
 
 
 ^" 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a, .-: 1 
 
 1 
 
 — "r-"l- 1 
 
 irt rs 
 
 1 
 
 
 tc.. 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 Tl 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 7^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C-j:6 
 
 
 f^:^?"o 
 
 
 
 CI 
 
 2 
 
 s it 
 5 
 
 s 
 
 >5 
 
 :F 
 
 :^' 
 
 k 
 
 ?5 
 
 5 
 
 
 7. K_ ._. , 
 
 . i rs t> 
 
 •3: = = t « 
 
 1. X 
 
 T, "C . "■ :— 
 
 
 
 - ■.•," -^i 
 
 : i J-. 5 !' B 
 
 i==J^^^ 
 
 
 C S ^ 3 'IS O 
 a. ^ S B ^ ^^ 5l 
 
 u^ a .7 _ - s c - 
 
 0) >:: I 
 
 3 - 
 
 •n 
 
 :j I = o 
 
 
 ^- i- ? = S r. = 
 
 5-— £ .5 -r 5, r- s. : • 
 
 
 :=- cU'^ 
 
 ''-— rs ™ 
 
 >.*.«*■ 
 
 — r ^ - 
 
 
 "3 l" 
 ^-1 
 
 C 3 
 
 
 3 -ri:' 
 
 1, w ■— 
 
 s j: --a 
 
 s i. ^ tt i — ' g 
 
 
 K tJ S-i; '/J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >; 2 ?- a 
 
 i- T* ;/: ' 
 
 ■I G i Si; 
 
 « K 
 
 
 "^ ; : 
 
 a 
 
 .a 
 
 c 
 1-3 
 
 ei ?t i> in 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 
 1-3 
 
 
 
 
 •-S 
 
 a 
 
 ? 
 
 W 
 
 it 
 
 ?? 
 
 ifl 
 
 «t 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 IS 
 
 1- 
 
 s 
 
 » 
 
 .^^■■=^ a 
 
 :="»« 
 
 = ^C^ 
 
 
 =2 
 
 "3 
 
 a 
 
 a) 
 «3 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 
 H 
 a 
 
 ^ 
 
 S A » 
 
 i, <J B . ■ 
 
 Oft- ►^ 
 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 I 
 
 to if 
 .St. 5 
 W =* 
 
 ■ S 3 
 US- 3 
 
 o.£ — 
 
 M 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 
 It^ 
 
 I 
 
m 
 
 k;(: 
 
 200 
 
 .\^n:i{ICA.\-I5IMTI.SII CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 "i> 
 
 t/v 
 
AGEXT S REPORT. 
 
 201 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 t>^' 
 
 .2ri 
 
 
 .2,1 
 
 
 
 
 S 7j 
 
 :: Tc 
 
 
 = '-1 
 
 
 m 
 
 a 
 
 c; „ 
 
 
 
 
 
 *- 
 
 CI 
 
 ^ 
 
 •c3 
 
 oj - 
 
 '? -V 
 
 
 
 CI 
 
 1— ' 
 
 
 2 
 
 C'tt 
 
 c-?c 
 
 "? 
 
 ^'l' 
 
 ^ 
 
 -r 
 
 t- 
 
 S .'^ 
 
 c.-^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 a « 
 
 •3 
 
 — 
 
 
 jj -■% 
 
 j; >; 
 
 <:; 
 
 i: ■'. 
 
 o 
 
 t 
 
 ,— . 
 
 i: r- 
 
 II 
 
 '•S- 
 
 £^ 
 
 is 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - "^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7J 
 
 ■n 
 
 *-< 
 
 5^ 
 
 r ^1 
 
 ■r. 
 
 5^ 
 
 f3 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ^' * I- " 3 ?^ 
 
 c; := 
 
 yS^ 
 
 ►^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 :; 
 
 X - 
 
 - '■ z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "Z ~ it 
 
 
 
 
 X ;^ 
 
 S ■/. .S 
 
 •f. 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 p. 
 
 ♦^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 .tj 
 
 ^j 
 
 ? 
 
 m 
 o 
 u 
 
 B*j ; : 
 
 .3 ; ; 
 
 -t^ 
 
 a 
 
 ti 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 =: 
 
 = 
 
 ■■" r* ■ ; 
 
 u 
 
 ;^ 
 
 ;;; 
 
 -X 
 
 .3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 J2 
 
 < '^ : I 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 s 
 
 a 
 
 <J 
 
 <5 
 
 i- 
 
 ■X; 
 
 - 
 
 •^ 
 
 < 
 
 H- 
 
 - -5 
 
 
 ij >5 
 
 C3 
 
 rt 
 
 rt 
 
 o 
 
 .N 
 
 h-l 
 
 -- 
 
 .a" 
 
 h 
 
 « 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c3 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 •^ 
 
 '* 
 
 
 
 
 y. 
 
 T. 
 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 X 
 
 
 .3 z: 
 
 
 , 
 
 d 
 
 
 u 
 
 3 
 
 e" 
 
 -a 
 
 ^ 
 
 5 
 
 ^ 
 
 5 
 
 m 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 A 
 
 ?=. 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 & 
 
 Z 
 
 
 .i :a 
 
 >) 
 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 >5 
 
 w 
 
 h^ 
 
 p. 
 
 ^ 
 
 .s« 
 
 CI 
 
 -* 
 
 •J 
 
 
 
 
 >"JU 
 
 
 
 Tj 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 r 
 
 rs 
 
 o" 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 :- 3 
 
 tl " -" ^ 
 
 
 - . i: c 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 — '3 
 
 pH 3 I 
 
 
 ti, ^ 
 
 - «. tt »^ -3 — ? - ?, 
 
 •^a Kr.sS .3Cr^=^ 
 -5^ ti,.2(M-<;s^-7 i tra: 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 3 >i 
 
 ^.2 
 
 '. .1!! 
 
 r r '/^ ^ 
 
 .2 5 J i. i 
 
 
 
 l-'^ f 
 
 
 
 iTrl^ 'Six?^ 
 
 « .t: > ? - -^ ' 
 
 C^ 3 'C , 
 CL^ 3 . 
 
 
 3 
 -r.P 
 
 _ .. J L'-^ "-^i .- = 
 
 
 
 --;^, 
 
 o ^ 
 
 o 
 
 ^1 p^ 
 
 
 
 § ' u K 1 " £(. l1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P3 
 
 s 
 
 a 
 
 .3 
 
 o 
 
 1-5 
 
 s 
 
 H 
 
 S 5 t==' 
 
 
 ;=! 3 
 
 = ;. - — I 
 •■* r* 3 ^ 
 
 
 y 
 S 
 
 ^■| 
 
 
 3 3j3 
 
 = 5 y^ 
 
 ill 
 
 o 
 
 ■5^ 
 
 f^.i~ 
 
 M 
 ^ 
 
 S 
 
 S 
 
i:ir. I t': 
 
 ml 
 
 It ^ 
 
 m 
 
 bk;- 
 
 
 202 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 8 
 
 © 
 
 '5 
 
 "S" 
 
 I 
 
 c5 
 
 AMEBICAN-BRITISTI CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 ?f 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 is 
 
 X 
 
 3 
 
 
 -iJ 
 
 If 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fS 
 
 
 '—) 
 
 r •— 
 
 a' 
 
 
 '■' 
 
 
 
 
 2„ 
 
 ^"oi.T 
 
 -H 
 
 ;- -t 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 .2* 
 
 
 
 cr7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 S ? 
 ■5 « 
 
 is 
 
 
 X 
 
 o" 
 
 
 
 p: 
 
 1 
 
 I'x 
 
 o — 
 
 - 3 
 
 1^ 
 
 ti 
 
 X 
 
 ci 
 
 a K 
 
 fee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 J 
 
 a" -^ 
 .2 .a 
 
 a 
 
 S 
 . is 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 is 1 
 
 •^ 
 
 .5 
 
 
 
 
 p<^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 *w ^^ 
 
 .= -^ o 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 i =" 
 
 •f 
 
 f— 
 
 '* 'n • 
 
 
 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jc 
 
 _v 
 
 — 
 
 X'^ 
 
 b 
 n 
 
 
 
 =3, 
 
 > 
 
 X :, 
 
 X 
 
 E 
 
 c a 5 
 
 
 
 
 ic 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 " ♦^ 
 
 ii* » 
 
 - £ 
 
 is 
 
 
 
 
 fe>^ 
 
 aZ 
 
 T 
 
 ^ 
 
 n5>^ 
 
 
 
 
 <^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <1 
 
 
 hH 
 
 — /- 
 
 — 
 
 _3 
 
 -1 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ph 
 
 
 
 -•I 
 
 U 
 
 "i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "1 
 
 
 
 *J 
 
 
 -M 
 
 = 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -3 
 
 a 
 
 -3 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■S 
 
 
 
 •4A 
 
 
 % 
 
 c - 
 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 
 
 ts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .9 
 
 ■3 
 
 
 
 -3 
 
 
 a 
 
 " '{• 
 
 X 
 
 1 
 
 
 a 
 "5 
 
 _a 
 ■3 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 H « 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 a 
 
 :5 
 
 V 
 
 
 a. 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 
 h-i 
 
 2f 3 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 S 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 i~t 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 g 
 
 •* "Tj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 5 
 
 
 
 r- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *4 
 
 
 
 "! 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 cl 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 c 2 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «- 
 
 
 
 Tt 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 x" 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 cj.S 
 
 1— • :4 
 
 
 
 t-" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ef 
 
 
 
 rf 
 
 
 o" 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 cT 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 " tS 
 
 a''— ' 
 
 
 
 «*4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1H 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 !-• 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ U 
 
 
 
 t» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 »^ 
 
 
 
 o" 
 
 
 
 'H 
 
 ^J& 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 """" 
 
 ■^""■^ 
 
 
 
 
 — — ■ ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 t' 
 
 'M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^— - 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 /^fc'N 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 ''~~ 
 
 — ■ >. 
 
 -~^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^ » 
 
 o o o ■-; 
 
 o c 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 CI 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ^~';" 
 
 
 
 ~~z' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 §1 
 
 O O 3 
 
 = » o = 
 
 C Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ' 
 
 I 
 
 
 ^4 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 or-oooococ 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 
 
 
 Cl 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 ' 
 
 
 »-* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c a 
 
 o 
 
 =•- l.T O O O O O C 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 CTi 
 
 ir 
 
 
 
 
 TO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 7J O *- O -r i- 
 
 w 1" 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 1" 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 *"- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S'3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -ii'z; 
 
 ^ 
 
 if — 
 
 "(jf of T^ M 
 
 
 
 »" 
 
 
 
 
 O' 
 
 
 u 
 
 : 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 01 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 ; 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >^ 
 
 
 >i 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •*-i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 ^ 
 
 c3 
 
 C9 
 
 h3 
 
 ; 
 
 i ; 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 \ 
 
 O 
 
 a" 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 • ; 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 \ 
 
 cS 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 ^ 
 
 § 
 1 
 
 • 
 
 ; ; 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 -.J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 •5S 
 
 \ 
 
 3 ^ 
 
 
 -4^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 1 i 
 
 eS 3 
 
 
 1 
 
 ; ; 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 J 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 <1 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 o 
 
 
 CI 
 
 itr- 
 
 >y« ^ 
 
 1* -f 
 
 -r -t 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 if% 
 
 r^ 
 
 "— ( 
 
 
 ~ m" 
 
 
 s~ 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 •j« 
 
 to -i 
 
 o -x 
 
 ■J3 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'S 
 
 y 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ti 
 
 
 
 O) 
 
 X QL 
 
 ;jj ju 
 
 XI X 
 
 7U U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 ru 
 
 GO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 oc 
 
 
 ta 
 
 *"■ 
 
 ^H — 
 
 
 — 1 ^ 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fH 
 
 1-H 
 
 ^^ 
 
 1-4 
 
 
 1-« 
 
 
 I-H 
 
 
 
 
 1H 
 
 o 
 
 r 
 
 l" 1 
 
 r r 
 
 f 1 
 
 r 
 
 *■ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l" 
 
 r 
 
 no 
 
 ?f 
 
 
 CO" 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 tc 
 
 " o- 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 t-H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 ft 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 *-H 
 
 ?: 
 
 >■. 
 
 tit 
 
 : C -^ 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,3 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 b a 
 
 
 Hs 
 
 << 
 
 << 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 s 
 1— 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 73 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ►; 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 \ 
 
 ' ? 
 
 -. 
 
 vT 
 
 •£ 
 
 x" ;,^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 >> 
 
 >i 
 
 'jO i 
 
 f. tfi; 
 
 l^ 
 
 1^ 
 
 _. 
 
 ■S 
 
 «• 
 
 
 o5 o5 
 
 a 
 "a 
 
 
 T. 
 
 5 
 o 
 
 5 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 1 a 
 \ 'S 
 
 ^ 1 
 
 tc 
 
 § 
 
 u 
 tt 
 
 
 5 
 
 ■5 
 
 3 
 1 
 
 
 •f. 
 
 O 
 
 3 ^ 
 
 ;3 s 
 
 ill 
 
 D 5 J; 
 
 ■n 
 ■Ji 
 
 W 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 2 ■: 
 
 ■♦-» 
 
 'a 
 
 ' 1 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 S 5« 
 ■3 "5^ 
 
 C (So 
 
 t4- 
 
 
 b 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 X CIS 
 
 a 
 
 • a 
 
 Z ' 
 
 \ j 
 
 1 C 
 
 
 3 
 
 u 
 ^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 a 5 
 
 5§ 
 
 'a 
 
 ■i-J 
 
 U.5 
 
 "" — - 
 
 '3 
 5? 
 
 
 5 c 
 
 "3 
 
 
 
 is 
 
 
 i Ja 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 s"? 
 
 2'i 
 
 5 \ 
 
 -= 
 
 c -^ 
 
 i 
 
 — ' 
 
 2 « 
 
 s 
 
 S 
 
 =5 ^ 
 
 
 .2 
 
 05 
 
 •■^ 
 
 i2 J? S 
 
 -§ 
 
 
 "C s^ 
 
 O 
 
 > 
 
 i 
 
 .2 " 
 
 
 
 a T. 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 5| 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 5j r 
 
 •3^ 
 
 111 
 
 ■*-i 
 
 '7. 
 
 
 — 7 
 
 ' X a CI .« 
 
 
 1o l| 
 
 
 .5 
 
 £.' 
 
 
 > J 
 
 X = 
 
 ' ^2. 
 
 'f.-r 
 
 0<i — 
 
 >ii 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 5-= 
 
 3 J is 
 
 ij 
 
 < = 
 
 3 2 
 
 ; " o 
 
 '~j 
 
 
 ^ ^^< 
 
 
 (^ 
 
 e^? 
 
 anx- 
 
 Xii 
 
 i c 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 "'a 
 
 y 
 
 6 
 
 c 
 
 fi 
 
 
 i 
 
 C 
 
 ) o 
 
 
 
 M U 
 
 •t^ 
 
 n 
 
 •gi 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 "1"^ 
 
 
 s 
 O 
 
 
 
 <« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ill 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 t 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 <4 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 1 
 
 o 
 2 
 
 c 
 
 3§ 
 
 'St. 
 
 •c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 e 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 s -a 
 
 5 to 
 i 3 
 
 i w 
 
 6 
 
 ,_^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ff» 
 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 in 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 »^ 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 ; 2 
 
 l^i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 ?* 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 s n 
 
agent's report. 
 
 203 
 
 
 
 
 C = ; 
 
 
 a 
 S 
 
 ?^ ►^ 
 
 t» n 
 
 
 
 rt :3 . 
 
 
 M X a 
 
 United 
 
 United 
 of Clai 
 
 
 t-.M 
 
 
 
 i: 
 
 c:j 
 
 
 « - 
 
 & 
 
 
 c 
 
 sy 
 
 c 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 (- 
 
 c^rs 
 
 cn K a 1 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 o i 
 
 
 
 
 s >> 
 
 CB 
 
 
 liD -C.5 1 
 
 e 
 
 c^ 
 
 M 
 
 u 
 
 
 X) 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 w 
 
 1 
 
 C 
 
 y 
 
 c 
 
 ja 
 
 
 ui 
 
 «J 
 
 
 p; 
 
 W 
 
 X 
 
 m 
 
 
 T-» 
 
 P5 
 
 « 
 
 
 in 
 
 u 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 in" 
 
 
 I' 
 
 *" rs 
 
 is2 
 
 % 
 
 * 
 
 % 
 
 1 
 
 f^ 
 
 
 '"' t "= > 
 
 oB^ 
 
 p. 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 is 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 t - - ~ = il 
 
 
 g 
 
 2 
 
 lI *■" a "J* ^ 'J 
 S i,a: :i ;:« 
 
 % 
 
 a 
 
 S 
 
 < <5 
 
 a 
 
 -3 
 
 r 
 
 
 a 
 
 9 
 1 
 
 ic 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 
 .3 
 
 •3 
 
 ^ P i. 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 i.-r 
 
 1:1 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 § 
 
 9 
 
 .= 
 
 t^ 
 
 f-H 
 
 o 
 
 CJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sri 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■s 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 § 
 
 s 
 
 n 
 
 o 
 § 
 
 CS 
 
 >• 
 
 B 
 O 
 
 S 
 
 .a 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 a 
 ■a 
 > 
 
 *^ o o 
 
 10 = 
 
 n o o 
 
 ;3 S 
 
 to =-T 
 l.-^ O T 
 
 o 
 
 « 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 r r 
 
 
 <1 
 
 
 .a 
 fe 
 
 M « 1.-5 
 
 u — :s 
 
 X X' u 
 
 ■r -r ■? 
 
 ; i- i; .a' s .a .s'.E .a 
 
 - = ? 
 
 
 
 
 P 5 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 — 3 
 
 -.U) 
 
 
 '^ 3 
 
 o 
 
 !3 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 :^ a 
 
 c .i ■■?: a 
 
 ?-3 
 
 5 , 
 
 f^-3 
 
 — a 
 
 5 
 
 3 . 
 
 n '4-' 
 
 t- — s 
 
 X r! X i-I 
 
 .i ■; .i y 
 
 7. — X ^ 
 
 )5 a .i'> 
 
 o 
 
 U 
 
 a 
 ca 
 
 CS 
 
 s 
 M 
 
 Cm 
 
 O 
 
 .a 
 
 a 
 
 5} X X "^ 
 
 •^ li 
 
 o 
 
 —•■3,- » 
 
 •C a'j^ 
 <1 _'tc 
 
 
 *j c = = 
 
 ^ . *i 
 
 c: a 
 
 ^ '- « -5 < < ■ 
 
 5.^5 2 
 
 -.a 
 
 2 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 -w 
 
 '^j 
 
 .t; 
 
 
 
 =3 
 
 
 q 
 
 ^ 
 
 7j 
 
 U 
 
 Et 
 
 '^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t>a 
 
 X 
 
 
 _■ 
 
 
 s 
 
 c-3 
 
 .", 
 
 ■ — 
 
 
 
 -M 
 
 g?3 
 
 -• T. *-? " *" _Z 
 
 (2 _) a;; _ 
 
 
 =-r a 
 
 iil l|^"^=l'= 
 
 _--Si^ 
 
 
 .ii:.c — . 
 
 i-i^^-'-^- 
 
 « . r ij :: S rt : 
 
 
 — 73 
 
 _ -3 
 
 • OB'S ."*^Bq5S^" a.:n -r^-.X — xi'^xa — r.c-a.^ 'x 
 
 a ^ « - r^'.r: ♦- * i. — c a . -^ .— *- a a w _.— ;• — «"■ r '-' 
 
 X •3'3 71 3 ^ c .a'P a J; a 7^ ?!* o - 
 
 M S fe J^Sfe WU 
 
 ;^ oyou 
 
 
 
 i = i S 
 55-^.= * 
 
 a 
 
 a ;j 
 
 « _ 
 
 oc — ;- 
 
 a iS 3) 
 
 ^-^ 
 
 ' -^Pi^'l 
 
 lizabeth T.. Tl. 
 JJ<iwie; married 
 a United States 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 •a 
 
 B 
 3 
 
 d 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 "3 
 
 3 
 
 S«33SJ 
 
 ha Br; ^^ a 
 2 i< a S =3 
 
 ;3 i a 4,1-sr" 
 
 w o is 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 •-5 
 
 3 
 
 > 
 
 William G.Ford, ad- 
 niini>«trator of J. 
 G. Robinson. 
 
 Bif= : 
 .a s = 2 a 
 
 Sij-c a 3 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 0) 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 .a 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 I-) 
 
 35 
 
 >? 
 
 
 
 4 H 
 
 •^ 
 
 H 
 
 !3 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
mwf 
 
 204 
 
 AMEKK'AN-HKITISII CLAIMS COMMISSTOX. 
 
 ' ;:^! 
 
 if 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 .2 
 
 s 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ?! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 ui 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tM 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 e-r 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 X 
 
 
 <i 
 
 
 h 
 
 
 
 1-N 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 TO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >. 
 
 -T 
 
 
 
 
 c >j 
 
 
 V" >« 
 
 5 
 7" 
 
 n 
 = 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fc-' 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1-1 
 
 1? 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 .§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 'r 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 ^ 5! 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 1 
 
 "3 
 
 
 
 
 
 o_ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 J 
 
 
 _c 
 
 
 _C J 
 
 
 
 ;§ "S 
 
 
 •J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C3 
 
 !5 
 
 /J 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 1 ? 
 
 
 (5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 *- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 IS 
 
 
 S3 
 
 
 
 <1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 *^-^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cc r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 
 ? r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 +i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '• 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 Cl 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 s 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 => 
 
 -/J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c r 
 
 Sri 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 (^ 
 
 
 4-- 
 
 
 = 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r/j 
 
 
 
 
 
 IT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 !■- 
 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •n* 
 
 "fi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 £ 1- 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 ^ '— 
 
 1' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 !S 
 
 TtT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 sf 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 l- 
 
 
 — "t 
 
 
 
 =H ,,- 
 
 
 -/J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 C^ •- 
 
 
 
 
 
 -w i.1 
 
 '■/J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'If 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 — ^■- 
 
 . 
 
 
 ^- 
 
 .,■ — 
 
 -\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 9 
 
 •? 
 
 
 s 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ ;; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 -- 
 
 -- 
 
 
 ^, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 5 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -r 
 
 
 
 
 
 i? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 = *s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *•/> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <1" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 CI 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .j£ 
 
 _J^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 1^^ 
 
 
 
 r*' 
 
 
 ' 1^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ' s" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , ^ 
 
 
 IJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 • a 
 
 t" 
 
 
 p«*. s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 : s 
 
 «i 
 
 > = 
 
 
 
 ^ 5 
 
 
 +■ 
 S 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 'a 
 
 =■'■3 
 
 C ;h 
 
 T. ^ ^. 
 
 
 - H 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Z '^' 
 
 c3 
 
 
 
 
 
 ?: 
 
 
 
 -* 
 
 ■ G 
 
 ?= 
 
 T 
 
 l'i^'§- = 
 
 ■A 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <5 
 
 <• 
 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 <J 
 
 
 IP- 
 
 (^ 
 
 r^^ 
 
 
 
 3 ?^ 
 
 
 'I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i.*: 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 «- 
 
 
 ; -^ 
 
 •r 
 
 n 1' 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 i\ 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cs 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 i5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iJL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 aj 
 
 cs 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■'/j 
 
 
 
 
 ':rj 
 
 
 
 ■7^ 
 
 (X YJ 
 
 
 CO .Xi 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iH 1—1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'rf 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 . 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 i' i" 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 *s 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 '7. 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 , ■ 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 p= 
 
 > 
 
 •J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 tb 
 
 
 1 > 
 
 d 
 
 Jr-j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 73 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >-5 
 
 CU 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 *> 
 
 
 •''' 
 
 t-j 
 
 ''-t''^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 > 
 
 e 
 
 1 
 
 ■r. 
 X 
 
 
 
 tf 
 
 
 s 
 
 < 
 
 I 
 -w 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 X 
 
 X, 
 
 4J 
 •r. 
 
 C. 
 
 a- 
 
 a" 
 
 is 
 
 
 c 
 
 — 3 
 
 - |7 
 ■r. <;" 
 
 HI 
 
 X S 
 
 =-^ 
 
 C X 
 
 X TT = 
 
 c ^ *■ 
 ■•-» — — 
 
 4 
 
 1 1^-= 
 
 ..." 'x^'S iC* 
 
 -15-= i2-=.^ 
 
 3 
 
 
 " % 
 
 [= 
 
 ^' 
 
 s 
 
 CS 
 
 
 ■3 
 
 X 
 
 
 ■r 
 
 
 w 
 
 ^ 
 
 %_ 
 
 ^ 
 
 5 
 
 %~ 
 
 ~S- 
 
 - 1 
 
 'j= 
 
 7 
 
 yQ 
 
 5^T 
 
 X 
 
 ii 
 
 X -s 7" St. 2 ii 
 
 "3 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 >• 
 
 
 U 
 
 c 
 
 — 
 
 H 
 
 > 
 
 
 -i '^ '" 
 
 
 ■"" 
 
 . '"■ 
 
 5X ; 
 
 '. r 
 
 tj 
 
 •^ 
 
 F-* 
 
 c^ = 
 
 :3 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■5 S 'c *= ~ 5 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 ir 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 ^5 
 
 <5 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 B 
 
 c 
 
 r 
 
 p 
 
 X 
 
 tf 
 
 ■jC 
 
 
 c 
 t 
 
 'r' 
 
 =3 
 
 X >. 
 
 5 a ^ 
 
 XT:; 
 
 ■ ?• 2 
 
 a " 
 - 3 
 
 
 .111 
 
 X 
 
 c 
 
 53 
 
 ■J2 m s " r — 
 r; X J: r- -^ 2 
 .^1 .§«- = 
 
 ribi-^x^ 
 
 
 s 
 
 2 
 
 "« 
 
 
 
 — ' 
 
 5 
 
 It 3 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 -? 
 
 
 5? 
 
 D e 
 
 2 
 
 x 
 
 r 4^ 
 
 '1.3 
 
 
 c • 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 ~ -J •/- ^ -= « M 
 
 
 r" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 r- 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 P 
 
 i'i 
 
 U 
 
 ^•r. 
 
 
 H M 
 
 g 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 ■ £ « & 
 
 g 
 "3 
 
 Cm 
 
 B 
 V. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 W 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 <.2 » 
 
 O 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 III 
 
 2 HH ;-^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 it 
 T 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 g 5 «0 
 
 i5 
 
 i= 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ii 
 
 ^ 
 
 h4 
 
 
 H ^ 
 
 6 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 T 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 CC 
 
 
 
 
 I' 
 
 
 IX) 
 
 
 
 0- 
 
 
 
 (V ?! 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 R 
 
 
 s 
 
 e? 
 
 
 
 ^ ?5 
 
I ^ 
 
 2 ?, 
 
 ?^ 
 
 =1^ 
 
 5 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 s )5ii 
 
 
 
 
 -I 
 
 
 J 2_ .• 
 
 5" 5 - 
 
 >: 
 
 
 
 
 
 — iis J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C = w 
 
 to 
 
 
 ■s « =j^ 
 
 w 
 
 
 i- X .^ V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SS ■" 3 
 
 -3 
 
 > 
 
 ■?.^J T.-' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 <• 
 
 = "- -f 
 
 
 
 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t; 
 
 s'-'-s o 
 
 ;; 
 
 ^ 
 
 :l > — r^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 y. 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^ = . 
 
 d 
 
 
 1.-1 
 
 
 
 es >- r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 hi! 
 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 V 
 
 
 ■* 
 
 ■0 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 I- 
 
 
 
 AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 •2.i-5>^ 
 
 205 
 
 1 
 
 — * 
 
 r-* 
 
 = t _t^ 
 
 i-JU 
 
 a 
 
 5 t: '^ i 
 
 T-l 
 
 
 .3 
 
 
 1 
 
 *"" i^ - 
 
 c 
 
 •^ 'C *" .^ 
 
 -■ — 
 
 i^.S 
 
 ;: 
 
 5 ;^ 3" 
 
 i- 
 
 H 
 
 <; 
 
 »-H 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 <5 
 
 
 t 
 
 •Sfi 
 
 s 
 
 ■i 
 
 5'-) 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 .4-: 73 
 
 o 
 
 ;^ 
 
 c — " 
 
 C^'O 
 
 C3 
 
 !4 
 73 
 
 = -I 
 
 
 ■all: 
 
 2 r.i =".i 5 
 
 •^ 
 
 1* n 
 
 ^7v XJ 
 
 rr 
 
 a 
 
 ■X X) 00 X' 
 
 r r r r 
 
 
 >, i aT-s 2 i 3 
 
 •S ~ 3 2 2 J 'J ^. _.'=■= 3 . = :£ -^ 
 
 -1 
 
 1=1 
 
 ^ — 1 
 
 
 
 
 T* -1^ 
 
 
 
 
 ~ »<; 
 
 r 
 
 - ■♦J 
 
 V '/I 
 
 ^s^^^t^sS 
 
 
 
 Ti' - T^ :r 'r ^ i- '^ 
 
 
 .-_ 5 ?j.ji S.t: a a - ,rji;^-- =ti c S .- = « 
 •~ = = > t -^ -^ ^ ?.;;-2 = -lit.'^ >>5-~ r;^5 
 
 
 ~, .- ^--^ i; " H Z- 
 
 7 *'^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 rS 
 
 
 2 o 
 
 w - i) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 ^' ;= 
 
 "r -1. -J 
 
 
 
 
 
 "tj 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 C %-i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t^s;^ 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 -I-- 
 
 1 = 1 
 
 r " , 
 
 a 
 
 
 r; 
 
 
 •/. ^ *• 
 
 p Ui 
 
 
 o:ji-! 
 
 c a a w 3 « 
 
 P^H ^ hj w 
 
 32 
 
 uii ^-3 - 
 
 
 o ~ C'-f' Z'^ ''■^o 
 
 ■I!! ^ .A X ^*a a-'z ^ *- '^ T. * 53 
 
 lii^-f^a-l'-slx^^ 
 
 ;* ;j 
 
 o 
 
 
 1-^ 4J 
 
 
 ;^ 
 
 Pis 
 
 2^a 
 
 5 E^; 
 
 f=^ « 
 
 ;w 
 
 N.O 
 
 c; 3 3 ~ ;^ — 
 
 Pi 
 
 r-l f'i 
 
 a=2 i-=5if = 
 
 *-i o> n 
 
 •■ -n 
 
 iM 
 
20G 
 
 AMERICAN-nRITISII CLAIMS COiMMISHION. 
 
 D 
 
 a 
 
 f 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 s 
 
 -2 
 
 i 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 s 
 
 u 
 
 ►a: 
 
 O 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 «0 
 
 
 .s 
 
 <A 
 
 ■3 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 5H 
 
 
 *<• 
 
 
 4- 
 
 hi 
 
 TO 
 
 a 
 it 
 «<1 
 
 s 
 
 1 
 
 (3 f^ 
 
 /J 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 1 
 
 (5 
 
 
 
 
 5=fc5=i^ 
 
 
 • S 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 1 
 8 
 
 
 ♦- J-.i — «- i — 
 
 
 <<* 
 
 ^4 
 
 
 
 •^:b^^^^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 S;^-"jP! ».p^ 
 
 1 
 
 St 
 
 ^ 
 
 i, 5 S ■= 't iT -- •• 
 
 a 
 
 <; 
 
 a 
 
 H 
 
 ?5 
 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 3 
 
 P 
 
 a 
 
 B 
 
 

 £3 
 
 t 3-- = .= ■S 
 
 
 ; •/ ;4 u'J 
 
 = >■ * = S -^ 
 
 y = — S .s - 
 
 AGENT H REPORT. 
 
 207 
 
 't r: '^.a 'S.-i 'tj.-i 'C.i 
 
 "fca -a 'Sa "5:; 
 
 • 5 •-> 3 — • 3 
 
 
 is 5 is = 
 
 
 s"=ti is s? 
 
 ^3. ^a. - - 
 
 
 
 -SS 'i !!2 !S2 -:-i: 
 r = 5 .t^ u-2 u- S-a. 
 •/ -i •- p •- '> ^- j ■> ^' •-= ■> ~ '•'^ "^ 
 
 
 -?> 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 •s 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^4 
 
 !,t 
 
 !>< 
 
 1^ 
 
 Jf 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 ?? 
 
 o 
 
 "S. 
 
 ^ 
 
 '/■> 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■Ji 
 
 .•;5 
 
 il 
 
 u 
 
 •a 
 
 1 
 
 fi 
 
 
 'ff 
 
 > 
 
 3 
 
 r; 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 
 i : ^ 
 
 a ; ; : 
 
 rest 
 
 1 
 
 rest 
 rest 
 rest 
 
 
 
 ? • 
 
 1 I o 
 
 Of 
 
 i/ ij ij 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • ' '^ 
 
 ;. • 
 
 ■ • a 
 
 a 
 
 .S .S .3 
 
 
 : : S. 
 
 *• ; : : 
 
 '. ! "S 
 
 "S 
 
 rs t) t) 
 
 
 i : * 
 
 <e ; ; ; 
 
 :i S 
 
 a 
 -4 
 
 a a a 
 -^ •>) -I) 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 s 
 
 ST, 
 
 o 
 
 TO 
 
 ifl 
 
 ^^ 
 
 A 
 
 T J> 
 
 I-* 
 
 § 
 
 !^ 
 
 ■I" 
 
 s 
 
 :is 
 
 s 
 
 i 
 
 5 
 
 M 
 
 S 
 
 SM 
 
 
 3 S 
 
 51 
 
 g 
 
 13 
 
 CO 
 
 IS 
 
 o o 
 I- ^iN 
 
 
 CH 2 
 
 TO !0 
 
 to I- 
 
 i ^ 
 
 o 
 
 -" J" 
 
 n « 
 
 a a 
 
 a a 
 
 C5 
 
 s a 
 
 a a 
 
 M 
 
 O 
 
 ,a' 
 cs 
 a 
 a 
 
 I 
 
 a 
 r~ a 
 
 3 i^ 
 
 O 
 
 .3* 
 rt 
 S 
 a 
 a 
 
 O 
 
 « 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 
 
 ■H2 
 
 <!) 
 
 U 73 K !» 
 
 d O 
 
 
 '2 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 .2 
 
 a 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 a . 
 
 Ba- 
 
 ••r -H 
 
 ■XI fJJ 
 
 ;-^ 
 
 OU 
 
 00 
 
 6 
 
 ■?f 
 
 
 
 CI ITI 
 
 o iri 
 
 ■S o 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 <1 
 
 ^ 
 fe 
 
 h2 ^ 
 
 2 -s5 
 
 cr, -tf 
 
 ' 3 
 '•J 
 
 a !B 
 
 " "* —'3 
 
 5 S 3 
 
 .- a N — ' 
 r" a '-^ .2 
 
 ■£22 z ? 
 
 o 
 u 
 
 ^ 
 
 .12 ^'- 
 = -= »: 2 
 
 I lilt 
 
 c t' 5 : a 
 
 s 
 
 5*^ - = -~3 5.. ^- ^- 
 
 
 ip r .2 
 
 S.'C ? .!J ^ ■= ^ > ? 
 
 ■•^cl £ 
 
 - if 
 3 
 
 
 •J -.5?— 2 Sit h 
 
 = < 
 
 r.t 
 
 t/3 
 
 s 
 
 C9 
 
 ftj E Ja ^1 3= t^.":-rf^«>^ •|^_=i = a^. 
 
 « S ri i '? T ■/• ^ 
 
 ■3 '^ a^ X = t-t: .- -- 
 
 2 a--^ z'B 'S'Z - ^M i 
 
 c-2a=-=-§§3-^3 = 
 
 
 o 
 
 a V 
 
 a S 
 
 M ^ 
 
 Q fq 
 
 i: fe 
 
 !» 
 
 u;j 
 
 
 
 i" 53 J3 
 
 •a 3? 
 
 HH ,=^ 
 
 y 
 
 u,= 
 
 
 S.2 
 
 «r( "O 
 
 ■3 K 
 
 s,-: 
 
 5 H " -s: 
 
 
 ^ ;s d 
 
 ;3 -=0 
 
 S Ci = 
 
 iC .2 
 
 ^ 
 
 W-/3 
 
 o 
 
 <1 -ila 
 
 q j3 
 
 
 S, ^ 
 
 i^i! 
 
 r- f" tr 
 
208 
 
 AMl'iaCAN-r.lMTlSII CLAIMS ('v)M.MlSSlOX. 
 
 in 
 
 
 ?» 
 
 's. 
 
 <>3 
 
 
 
 •M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ?? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ',1 
 
 
 ' 
 
 *1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,_ 
 
 
 /J 
 
 
 ►? 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «r; 
 
 v. 
 
 s 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 .-r 
 
 7. 
 
 ''V 
 
 '^ 
 
 'E 
 
 SJ 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ►^ 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 « i ■? ?; J ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s. 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 a 
 
 •A 
 
 "< 
 
 a s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 X '" 
 t > 
 
 11 
 
 1^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 is 
 
 a 
 
 
 4. 3 
 
 t: a 
 
 b. J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a £ u 
 
 ►-■u 
 
 a *■ 
 
 s 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 a 
 
 NH 
 
 <4 
 
 -f) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -1 
 
 
 -,j-- 
 
 O 
 
 S 
 
 s 
 
 o o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ~S^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 ' 
 
 e 
 
 o . 
 
 "^ 
 
 o o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •»■ 
 
 
 10 
 
 a ; 
 
 ^ 
 
 g 
 
 s 
 
 
 F^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "*» 
 
 
 "i 
 
 S s 
 
 3 
 
 ■^ 
 
 * 
 
 5 
 
 <-. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Iff 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 
 sl 
 
 f 
 
 
 iX 
 
 s 
 
 « i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^«5 
 
 
 <» 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 •-:: 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 -- 
 
 , ~ 
 
 "** 
 
 
 
 
 
 "-? 
 
 
 ,— 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 1 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1- , 
 
 
 ri 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 fix 
 
 (fi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I* 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 "XJ 
 
 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <- 
 
 : 
 
 • 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •A» 
 
 
 r? 
 
 
 
 -f 
 
 
 1". 
 
 ?? 
 
 
 
 ?. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 [ 
 
 J 
 
 ~ 
 
 •J 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 ; 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 .2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^i^ 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 ♦-' 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 tfi 
 
 
 
 vj 
 
 
 « 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 •—1 
 
 
 i*i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ci; 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 %-. 
 
 
 :*4 
 
 
 'J 
 
 = 
 
 *5 
 
 = 
 
 'S. "'S 
 
 
 
 _2 
 
 
 r. 
 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 '. 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 r/j 
 
 
 4* 
 
 ■; 
 
 V ^ ."^ 
 
 
 
 *-4 
 
 
 Tc 
 
 
 
 [ijj 
 
 
 Tc 
 
 Tc 
 
 
 
 Tc 
 
 
 
 
 ■5 .• 
 
 
 M 
 
 ^ 
 
 a" 
 
 __.. 
 
 — 
 
 s 
 
 ■/ — ,^ 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 1::: 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 r -3 
 
 
 r -5 
 
 
 ,ii 
 
 r^ 
 
 s 
 
 'r =-^ 
 
 
 
 i/ 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 = a 
 
 
 X 3 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 ;^ 
 
 .i = = 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 43 
 
 
 
 
 = 71 
 
 
 " Ti 
 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 f 
 
 Um 
 
 5=^.3 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 n 
 
 ■M 
 
 
 
 -.J 
 
 
 
 
 ta'J 
 
 
 1»- ',^ 
 
 
 y 
 
 H 
 
 S^^ 
 
 5 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 -w/ 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 w* 
 
 
 O 
 
 -— V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 '"'^~ 
 
 ~53' 
 
 
 :o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 S~ 
 
 
 
 
 3' 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 7J 
 
 1j 
 
 at 
 
 Oj 
 
 ■ u 
 
 
 
 jj 
 
 
 iVj 
 
 
 
 ru 
 
 
 r/j 
 
 -X. 
 
 
 
 rju 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 »-* 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 I-* 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 
 •I 
 
 
 i-< 
 
 
 
 
 
 »^ 
 
 «-* 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^-i 
 
 
 f-< 
 
 u 
 
 f" 
 
 irT 
 
 ir: 
 
 ^. 
 
 l*" 
 
 
 
 tT 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 o" 
 
 
 •h" 
 
 II 
 
 
 
 oo" 
 
 
 
 
 ■r*" 
 
 
 L-:? 
 
 ^ 
 
 CI 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 CI 
 
 
 
 
 CJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t'i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ?J 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■M 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ~, 
 
 
 «■ 
 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 tit 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 -J 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 
 A 
 
 O 
 
 i?; 
 
 'A 
 
 'A 
 
 
 
 :^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 >^ 
 
 
 
 fl 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 c.-? 
 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 :3 
 
 € 
 
 J! 
 
 
 
 '?' 
 
 / 
 
 "' 
 
 3 
 
 
 P.S 
 
 ? 
 
 •^1 
 
 X 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 * *- 
 
 r 
 
 u 
 
 3 
 
 i- 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 r. — • 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 JQ 
 
 — 
 
 1 
 
 
 r! 3 
 
 ■>' 
 
 a 
 "^ a 
 
 C 
 
 3 
 
 
 CI 
 
 X 
 
 « 
 
 5 
 
 .2 - 
 
 ^11 
 
 a 
 3 
 
 s 
 
 tc 11 
 
 2 
 
 "3 
 
 3 
 5 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 O 
 
 ex 
 
 "E 
 
 n 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 — C "" . 
 
 s = H .2 
 
 ■5'n U> 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1 
 'J 
 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 >. a 
 
 
 — >j 
 
 .2 i'^ 
 
 5|| 
 
 
 •r. 
 
 ■r. 
 
 -/: 
 
 1 
 
 ,"x 
 
 3 
 
 7; 
 
 
 ^ — ' X 
 
 1.1 -J 
 
 3 
 •/5 
 
 c; ;; 
 
 p'a 
 a '■' 
 
 
 
 ■^ c 7 
 
 lll 
 
 
 
 t-'a 
 5 >. 
 
 1 
 
 
 2,^ 
 
 
 2; 
 
 1. K S 
 
 — 
 
 1 
 
 ;^ 
 
 r*,-- 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 — 1 X ,, 
 
 r; X -' 
 
 1 
 
 5-- 
 
 
 5" 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 
 
 
 «3r 
 
 03 
 
 '^ 
 
 jit-i 
 35 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 OQ 
 
 md 
 
 5 
 
 M 
 
 ■^ 
 
 '*i 
 
 *^ 
 
 3-3-= 
 
 ^ 
 
 6 " 
 
 
 ; 
 
 • 
 
 ,^ 
 
 I 
 
 •■X 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 , 
 
 •—>%-) 
 
 4^ 
 
 
 
 3? 
 
 
 o £ = 
 
 X 
 
 tJ" 
 
 5 = S 
 
 1-) = 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 go 
 
 a . 
 
 
 "3 
 
 1 
 
 § 
 
 3 
 
 i: 
 « 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 S 
 .2 
 
 c 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Mil!] 
 
 A 
 
 »3 
 
 (S 
 
 4 
 
 ►5 
 
 
 
 t— 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tS 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 1" 
 
 in 
 
 „ 
 
 r- 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 ▼H 
 
 ;^ 
 
 s 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 S 
 

 li 
 
 U 
 
 i 
 
 
 'A 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 rs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 e. 
 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 li 
 
 ?.5 
 
 
 
 
 rt ^ 
 
 
 
 -< 
 
 72 
 
 d 
 
 1l 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 •j; 
 
 o s 
 
 ■n 
 
 c^ 
 
 3 
 
 
 3 
 
 -M" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 •^ i 
 
 J 
 
 5 :S 
 
 
 
 
 (^ 
 
 1 _■:; ^ i 
 
 H 
 
 AGKXTS RKPORT. 
 
 20!) 
 
 a. 
 ■J5 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 I 
 
 It 
 
 3 
 •S 
 
 u 
 
 »^ 
 a 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 £5 9_. 
 
 
 ff 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 SI 
 
 a 
 
 
 5^ 
 
 '4. 
 
 1^ 
 
 U 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 B 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 V 
 
 1 
 
 It 
 
 § 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 2" 
 >, 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 t 
 
 "S 
 
 1 
 
 e-s 
 
 ~l 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 S 
 
 <r 
 
 » 
 
 » 
 
 s * 
 
 S 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 
 
 1 
 
 < 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 Q 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 i: 3 
 
 1 
 
 
 i-3 
 
 
 1 tl 
 
 at 
 
 o : 
 nil 
 
 • s o 
 
 tfi 5 
 
 o 
 5 -J 
 
 \f -. 
 
 .4, t3 ■ 
 
 'AO 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 5 /; !^ 
 
 2» 
 
 C--3 
 
 £:£ = 
 
 
 2i 
 
 a 
 1 
 
 - 5 
 
 o 
 
 2i : 
 
 iJ t 
 
 ^ : 
 
 O O 
 
 f.; 
 
 S .2 
 
 ir; a 
 
 i % 
 
 
 ts 
 
 'D 
 
 in 
 
 8" 
 
 > — ^ « -— 
 
 ii- 
 •^5 2 
 
 Etc a 
 
 
 <J K ■♦-' 
 
 7 CC 
 
 , C5 a. 
 
 a. C f 
 
 
 i3 * •« 
 
 .£■« 
 
 h-* * x 
 
 S f ?'> 
 
 » 
 
 
 c- «■/: 
 
 •E 5 5 
 
 a 
 cs 
 
 a 
 
 >J.-2.2 R 
 
 
 g"S.a' 
 
 
 oi a? 
 
 c_ <- < 
 
 9 
 
 O 
 .3 
 
 > 
 
 -a 
 .9 
 
 ■3 
 
 « ;^ « 
 
 :-3 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 5 
 
 a 
 o 
 *•* 
 
 o, 
 
 B 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 n 
 o 
 
 B n 
 
 55 
 
 S . S 8 
 
 S3 
 
 J. « >. 
 
 '' K a 
 
 r a 
 
 
 II 
 
 
 
 
 Ph 
 
 co-ii ttl' !:..:c;j 
 
 * a-T! =-a 
 
 Mf^ 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 (. u ■• •<- 
 T. r- i X -8 u 
 
 -11-= si 
 
 ■r e .:; = e <L 
 
 
 k< 
 
 — . . ft . . ;■[ i-( s ? :: a T. s *= , 
 
 ■a- H 
 
 ■= ■ a 
 
 c a a a 
 
 f;=:H 
 
 
 C w b . ^ 
 
 te a J » 3 
 a? ~l •S^-.si. 
 
 n 
 
 cS r; 
 
 O .rj:>5"^ 
 
 
 u 3 ;c ft. 
 
 "^ •— ' * s s 
 
 P=, 
 
 C2 
 
 eij ^ S3 
 
 2 * Ml 
 
 ^■". H 
 
 a omS 
 
 = a 
 
 '/! 
 
 S^ 3 H S? O 
 
 y 
 
 ^ 
 
 2 1-0 
 
 2^ 
 
 a a X 
 Esc 
 
 IR S 
 
 14 H 
 
 §$$#$$ 
 
 
 W ''' " 
 
 ^H 
 
 -iri-« 
 
 
 f .'. r :^ 
 
 ^i.^ 
 
 ■'■:* 
 
 111 
 ill 
 
|JIJII|fg>|Ul 
 
 210 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 2 
 
 00 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 re 
 I 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1— » 
 
 o" 
 
 1 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 5 
 
 11^^ 
 
 ■ 1 a 
 
 1 
 
 ^ ^ a 
 
 a 
 
 ^ 
 
 II 1 UL 
 
 Si ! fir 
 
 © e 
 •3 -c 
 
 c 
 
 ,254 
 
 ^ 
 
 -§ -i 
 
 e 
 
 a 
 "3 
 
 Total amount 
 clamed. 
 
 - « ^ 
 
 n Ka cc. 
 
 1 ^ ^ 
 
 in" rf" c 
 
 (f» -r 51 -" ip e; — 
 i- is w r- *» CJ is CO "r is 
 
 «■■ fff «" K 
 
 ai 
 
 £'3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5^ 
 
 _c 
 
 > e 
 
 e 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 -i 
 
 _c 
 
 c 
 
 % % 
 
 
 'S 
 
 a 
 
 -XtCDGOOOODQUQUaOOOauQuaU'XJCC 
 
 !?[ Sf 8 gf S !:t S3' fet fet ?f !?f S gf S 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 11 II II 11 II 11 II II II II 11 II 1 1 
 
 = S C g_ o c« O S— = C_ = C— O S— * Err; O £— « S— ^ £_ S„ 
 
 lpll.lll.sll.llllllllllll.^ll.lll.lll.lll^^ -^ 
 
 (S x;^^ «tJ(aJ jt-fS ^i^P. jt-Pn jt^fi .P?L, «&?., jtJfS «p(j; ?p(s; «& § g 
 
 1:^1 §::i ifi 1^1 i:i 1:^1 s^i i::i s:^? 1^1 1:^1 li^n .| 
 
 i3ji!r&^iis5ierif!isri?5isji!ii§ri^!.ii--| 
 
 ^^■^ g^3 S^3 b^-3 fe^3 g^-= ^^-1 g^-2 S^-i i^'^ ^^^ ^S'S^^. ^^ 
 
 4i 
 
 § 
 
 a 
 
 <s 
 
 5*1 
 
 i i « -^s 
 
 1 ^. p ^m 
 
 £ 3 ^ lex: 
 ^ ^ <) ^ ►s 
 
 < 
 
 • 1 
 
 ^ 1 1 i 1 :. |5 P 
 
 1. ^? ^ 1 4 1 l» |l 
 
 il il ll 1, i II liilil 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 % 
 
 S 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 3 
 
 ft 
 
 3 
 
 
 5" 
 
 IS 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 r3 
 
 , Ml 
 
i 
 
 
 AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 211 
 
 
 7J 
 
 ^*" 
 
 O 
 
 <u 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ITS 
 
 ■w 
 
 « 
 
 u 
 
 is 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 iS.= 
 
 
 
 .=: = or- 
 
 
 t 
 
 %lr\ 
 
 I 
 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 'T « 5 •* -r- ^ 
 
 3 
 
 o a 
 
 c s 
 
 c :S - « ?! 
 
 u a . 
 
 o 5 = 
 
 a 
 
 *:» 
 
 — o 
 '^ y 
 
 a 
 
 oooeiQOMOio cc oa 
 
 O O CJ C» O -r Cl ". '^ »!• c 
 
 — o ■^ L-^) — I- o r^ o 1.^ -t 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 £20, 000 
 10, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 - 
 
 51 00 
 
 r^ au" 
 
 1 *-^'' 
 
 c 
 
 
 <lo 
 
 do 
 
 An 
 
 C 
 
 _5J 
 
 At sea 
 
 Savaiinali, Ga 
 
 Capo Lookout 
 
 Atsea 
 
 a 
 
 5 
 
 U 
 
 P 
 
 e 
 
 o 
 
 .a 
 
 ja 
 
 
 -*^ 
 
 
 >. 
 
 a 
 
 *ia 
 
 «A 
 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 s 
 
 
 a 
 
 s 
 
 1 
 
 (h 
 
 
 ^M 
 
 o< 
 
 d . 
 
 S . 
 
 - m 
 
 "■* 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 aH 
 
 iM 
 
 ^a! 
 
 i^ 
 
 C 
 
 55 
 
 i^ 
 
 5§ 
 
 §1 
 
 
 
 
 is 
 
 75? 
 
 
 
 5 at ■.* 
 
 3 
 
 (A 
 
 
 01 
 
 
 
 
 I" 
 
 s_2 
 
 pii u ;i4 
 
 uS 
 
 r: 3 
 
 ^ 3 
 
 
 
 fi- X 
 
 _ s 
 
 •IS 
 
 P3 
 
 
 
 « ? 
 
 
 4 
 
 S ?} S? 55 ^ SfS ti 
 
 * "r 'T 'C 'r 'T V 
 
 
m' 
 
 212 
 
 SI 
 
 d 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 
 I- 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 s 
 e 
 
 
 :i 
 
 
 'S' 
 
 IB 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 
 « 
 
 «■ ri 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 ?x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 an 
 
 
 2 If 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 >> 
 
 
 
 r£ a o" 
 
 JS 
 
 ?; = 
 
 
 ■< 
 
 
 
 
 :S 
 
 
 
 i 5 "S 
 a a 
 
 fe 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 *? 
 
 
 
 
 •J 
 
 
 
 -5 'H -§ 
 
 w 
 
 .i-- 
 
 c; a 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 CO o 
 
 
 li 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 9J oS CO 
 
 
 < 
 
 < <I 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 e « p 
 
 
 f— 
 
 p— » 1— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r* -4-^ -M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■Srs 
 
 ?3 
 
 § § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iu -^ Ji a 
 
 *.5 
 
 '■1« 
 
 « 2 ^ ts. 
 
 = t" « >- ai 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 zz a a 
 
 M « 
 
 ^^- 
 
 - a *; « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■^S. 
 
 - 
 
 « H^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -1 <1 <) 
 
 1 ° 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 s 
 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 in 
 
 
 
 § «- 
 
 OJ 
 
 11 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 o" 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 2 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! H 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 /^ 
 
 „»^> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <* 
 
 1 «- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 § 
 
 g 
 
 5§ 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 8 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 i^ 
 
 g 
 
 = 
 
 1.-5 
 
 
 S 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 W7 
 
 c^ 
 
 c 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 CI 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■51; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ct 
 
 
 e» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 
 s 
 
 h^ 
 
 3 
 
 S 3 
 = !3 
 
 
 n 
 
 o 
 
 0* 
 CO 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 w 
 C 
 a 
 
 hi 
 
 C 
 
 "3 
 
 c 
 
 a 
 
 1=^ 
 
 
 to 
 El 
 
 u 
 H 
 
 "a 
 
 o 
 
 
 O 
 .2 
 
 J 
 
 O 
 
 B 
 
 
 .3 
 
 ^J3 
 
 -4^ 
 
 1 
 
 i) 
 
 c 
 u 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 § 
 
 ® a 
 
 <1 
 
 a 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 5 
 
 c;o 
 
 ^25 
 
 ;z5 
 
 w 
 
 ^ 
 
 t?! 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 
 S 
 
 CI 
 
 ff» 
 
 ~> 
 
 >» 
 
 C» 
 
 T) 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 ■^ 
 
 n 
 
 -* 
 
 S 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 •o 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 ?r 
 
 ca 
 
 
 
 OL 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 OU TO 
 
 CD 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 Of 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 •^ 
 
 -H 
 
 l-H 
 
 '"' 
 
 t-i 
 
 ^" 
 
 ■^ 
 
 t-* 
 
 T— 
 
 1-t 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 •V 
 
 TT 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 cl 
 
 Ji 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 r 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 S 
 
 ^ 
 S 
 
 
 •-3 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 s 
 
 
 3 
 
 i 
 
 S3 
 
 s 
 <1 
 
 B 
 i3 
 IT) 
 
 3 'g 
 
 1 
 
 
 !'.-= -S - i >.? 
 
 
 5 S b ? 
 
 -^.u ■" ^.'-"^ 33S!/J £^'>r.S S*:^ 
 
 sr a -3 3 J = >a "Si— 2 -E 5 a .eg 
 
 •i- -i.j Ss^"-" f-s^e* sbSSm fecs 
 
 ts3 I'id g^:=» si^.S" i=f ? ..a§^ 
 
 a 
 its 
 
 to 
 
 9 
 O . 
 
 !r « 
 ■a t> 
 
 " s 
 
 o 
 
 « C, X 
 
 
 
 ^X ^ stJii-rX s^P 5 a >■='<-' •r'-'-i =^'P. = ^'3 p.-/; ^.a'3 5.72 
 
 a U a 
 a « h i" =" 
 
 W = 
 
 00 u 
 
 §a 
 
 s 
 
 0) 
 
 B 
 
 
 5 
 
 ^ 
 
 i 
 
 e 
 
 l« 
 
 n 
 
 42 
 
 t-i 
 
 M 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 t 
 
 i 9— 
 
 K " - J 
 
 >- a, 6- rt 
 "a *r» i! 
 
 I' 
 
 S 
 
 i 5 
 
 s ^ 
 
AGENT'S REPORT. 
 
 213 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 [32 
 
 
 pg 
 
 
 
 •il 
 
 «' 
 
 e 
 
 
 p 
 
 ^ 
 
 s 
 
 -.tb 
 
 o s 
 
 12 
 
 :-?5 
 
 n 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 g" 
 
 fi 
 
 1) 
 
 
 
 «r 
 
 
 00 
 
 rH 
 
 
 C3 
 
 s 
 
 
 >i 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 a 
 1 
 
 
 A. 
 
 "a 
 is 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 O 
 
 «^ 
 
 u 
 
 2 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 f* 
 
 '^"S-J 
 
 o 
 
 •^s 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 «■- ji 
 
 •— 
 
 ■H 
 
 
 
 
 
 C t.« 
 
 a 
 
 u u 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 s 
 
 1? 
 
 is 
 
 gg2 
 
 » 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 i= 
 
 K 
 
 h-t 
 
 « 
 
 <1 
 
 <-< 
 
 
 
 *^-< 
 
 ft 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 <; 
 
 <j 
 
 - 
 
 X = t- s S = *- s •« 
 
 • 3 
 
 t- 
 
 O 
 
 ,_! 
 
 S O 
 
 o 
 
 o = 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 O Ci 
 
 
 
 •r 
 
 C» 
 
 CI 
 
 o s 
 
 n 
 
 c = 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o o 
 
 ».•; 
 
 o 
 
 
 i.-^ 
 
 1-5 
 
 c o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — « 
 
 
 
 TO 
 
 1.-5 O 
 
 
 »- 
 
 
 O 
 
 » 
 
 
 V» 
 
 — -H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «* 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 ■^ 
 
 s^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 5S 
 
 «ti 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Xt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _• 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 r' 
 
 — 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 c 
 3 
 
 :d 
 ga 
 
 H = 
 
 1 
 
 
 a; 
 
 li 
 
 
 6 ^ 
 
 
 
 ■3 
 
 
 ^ = 
 
 ^ W 
 
 a 
 
 ii'?!! 
 
 
 
 
 
 s - 
 
 ' S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 a 
 
 
 t-3 
 
 
 "^1 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 T 
 
 
 c - 
 
 4:^ 
 
 - 
 
 
 <| 
 
 J'-O 
 
 u 
 
 "-A-f- 
 
 ?^ 
 
 
 p: 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 <r. 
 
 M 
 
 S 
 
 r: ro 
 
 ff» 
 
 SI -H 
 
 ^ a 
 
 «. 
 
 
 ir 
 
 , 
 
 ^ 
 
 e 
 
 XI 
 
 •i -J 
 
 
 ;C 
 
 
 
 <c 
 
 u 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 x %■ 
 
 
 fU u 
 
 _ X 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1-H 
 
 
 
 
 1-< 
 
 1", 
 
 CI 
 
 a 
 
 P- 
 
 Sf-'" 
 
 a 
 
 =="1" 
 
 1— 
 
 " 
 
 
 t- 
 
 s 
 
 r 
 
 "^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 ^3" 
 
 s 
 
 C 3 
 
 ■g- i 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 
 
 fe 
 
 (>< 
 
 fi- 
 
 c:^ 
 
 •r. 
 
 
 !Zi>^ 
 
 c 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 
 
 <: 
 
 f^ 
 
 a 
 
 I t '' U - w 
 
 t'^i^.S 5:-= 
 
 ~ 5 ? ^3 
 
 0>i «>• 
 ■a i i; -I! 
 
 ^i-i -Si 
 
 - C r 2 *- >- ? 
 
 C "t; > > aj s ♦^ 
 
 w_^p3 s; t- u 
 
 -•= 9 r. ft, 
 
 
 'S 
 
 n 
 
 (1.5 
 '5 
 
 
 
 h 
 
 -- 2 .S * 
 •^ ^ a C 90 
 
 — V i &« 
 
 - £« a 
 
 a « S^ 
 
 £ « « 
 
 a " r. 
 
 a tt-s 
 
 .-- — ij 
 
 ^- c^ 4^ 
 
 « -"S 
 
 'S -— -^ > *5 ^ 
 
 >^ S~- ■'•- it 
 2 -"^5=^ 
 
 w _j- a •- S "^ 
 
 rt a: - i-'j; - -i 
 
 »r ^ .f- ? a .S ■= 
 t a a t i< rt >; 
 
 t 1-1 CO X ^ ^ ^ 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 a s 2 •- —is — 
 .2-r? a ^5is3 
 
 
 .^ ^^-^ = 
 
 
 ♦- a— i - . ^ 
 
 
 — ?'■= 
 
 2 ;^' 
 
 II 
 
 f^-s — 
 
 S T. .a 'S „ 
 
 ^-a^i 
 
 " a3 ? 
 . ?, s 5 
 K a ♦- ac 
 
 « ~ ,- c ■ 
 
 ; t_. ?: 
 
 
 •3 
 
 5,-1 a 3 
 
 S a ^ 
 
 CS — 
 
 "j '*' •^ = E .- ?^-- S t 
 § j > " < K a -^ -^ •- 
 
 irrii!^: .=S-= 
 
 ►5S fi 
 
 . X 5 T. kC= 
 
 ■" a ^ : 2 s tf- t- o 
 
 ,. 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 c: 
 
 -r 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 •z 
 
 
 •5 
 
 Ed 
 
 
 "c 
 
 -r 
 
 5 
 
 r! 
 
 
 fr 
 
 jj 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 i 
 
 r^ 
 
 '7 
 
 r 
 
 ■c 
 
 *7 
 
 "- 
 
 
 
 CJ 
 
 
 
 ;; 
 
 — 
 
 
 *— 
 
 •■i 
 
 
 * 
 
 « 
 
 i 
 
 — 
 
 w 
 
 « 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0^ 
 
 * 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 - 
 
 ?: 
 
 "Z 
 
 rr 
 
 ™ 
 
 ■r 
 
 SX~Z K— S — -' 
 
 c 
 
 t 
 
 .a 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 -a 
 
 s- a 
 
 ill • I tu 
 
 a es X * "^ T*^S —J 
 
 C4 
 
 S.s£5cis|s?: 
 
 o ■ 
 
 II 
 
 a „ 
 
 9 
 
 '3 
 
 c 
 
 _5 X ■; 
 
 1^^ a ~ 
 
 ►^ ^ -s ^ ?0 
 
 m 
 
 H 
 
 ■.. r: 
 
 J ^^ll 
 
m 
 
 w 
 
 S ' "' 1^!'^' 
 
 
 
 
 H '■' !*■''. 
 
 
 K' 1' "f / 
 
 
 km,\M 
 
 M 
 
 214 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 9 
 
 s 
 o 
 O 
 
 
 I: 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 <3 
 
 S 
 
 a 
 
 6 
 « 
 
 s 
 S 
 
 ■S 
 
 M 
 -I 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 C 
 
 H 
 
 p. 
 
 S 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 ?f 
 
 js 
 o 
 
 52 
 
 00 
 
 
 pjri- 
 
 ^ 
 
 i-i-sT 
 
 
 2i2«« 
 
 li 
 
 2J2S. 
 
 < 
 
 *:*^-^ 
 
 'S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ? ?.S 
 
 .3 
 
 ■ff-f-^ 
 
 
 a o-S 
 
 >* 
 
 
 t. 
 
 'b'5 « 
 
 « 
 
 « /I jj 
 
 te 
 
 o ca-^ 
 
 •^5 
 
 ^ if. 
 
 f2 
 
 a, -« 
 
 P3 r- 
 
 
 -'3 <! 
 
 p. 
 
 <!a 
 
 = 5 i 4) 
 is 
 
 o 
 
 a o 
 
 3 
 
 ■3 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 9 9 
 
 t 2 
 
 c — 
 
 S i! 
 
 13 
 
 a 
 •«1 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 ? X ^ o: 7^ w 
 
 S i:S8 
 
 CI 
 
 s! 
 
 
 n X- 1'- 
 
 o 1- — 
 
 K 
 
 o 
 
 =15 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 5 a 
 
 <;-3 
 
 1^ 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 *5 
 
 
 o ® « 
 
 <5 
 
 TI 
 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 73 
 
 s 
 3 
 
 0) r- X (- 
 
 «- fc c o 
 
 E 
 
 a 
 
 e 
 
 a a 
 
 - ^ r «- 
 ■^ -:3 *- 3 
 
 ~ ?-= » 
 H 
 
 * 3 ^ 
 
 rzrs s- 
 
 .■5 a ■§ 
 tp.2>.i; 
 
 ^'S s = 
 
 ^ (1^ *-^ s 
 
 5-2 '^ = 
 
 aa .' 
 
 >; - 
 
 cf of ^ 
 
 Wi! 
 
 -1 
 
 •^-=■3 
 
 •-3 
 
 s =-43 
 
 « s. 
 
 = ^ >) 
 
 
 = ^^ 
 
 
 <^-; 
 
 y ^"^ )-;» 
 
 o 1-; n 
 -.a u: -x) 
 (I. x; xi 
 
 '^'^O 
 
 
 -^ - — 
 
 
 
 C-i'c'ri 
 
 ^ t< - 
 
 « CO 
 
 
 ^ S — 
 
 ^ — ■ ti r^* ■ 
 
 
 
 •^ a ^ 
 .s ?< ? 
 
 c w - 
 
 « o rt 
 
 ; ii S '-=5 
 
 rr.'J} 
 
 -zs ■^. 
 
 = = 2 
 
 .3'^ 'E i 
 
 1^ 
 
 -'a 
 'tis — 
 
 O CO 
 
 a 
 •^ 3 
 
 >0- o :j O 
 
 jooc x: 
 
 II 5( 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 C9 
 
 
 ^ w w *: 
 ■*j *i» -fcj 2 
 
 -3 
 01 
 
 a 
 
 — Tsis 3 >>3 
 
 1^ 
 
 £ .• = = s ? 
 
 S aa 
 
 -3 ^^ -M *3 
 
 : b o a a 
 
 .-S s,sa 
 
 ^-c .. tPa 3 
 
 53 a 
 
 III 
 
 a .:: 
 
 
 r3 
 
 a st» 
 
 •5--fcM ^-^ 
 
 : E^— s i~ 5 3 
 
 
 li V <e 
 
 a 
 
 a c*S^^ 
 
 u r - . - 
 
 -r e-5-s 5 a.2.JS 
 
 
 •SsS-^s 
 
 §§,' 
 
 3 3.- 
 
 ? xS'o 
 3 «" J a a 
 
 iJ *^^ • X i; 
 
 a. -5 "2 
 
 S'-aJa-Sf 
 
 
 F- i'a 
 a 
 
 "a .. 
 5 MiC 
 
 .^ «i i:i. <9 K ff ^ 
 
 === 
 
 ® 3-5.= 5 cP 
 
 a = 3- 
 
 
 
 >> 
 
 
 a 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 1^ 
 
 « 3„ 
 
 OHO 
 3SS5S 
 
 ' d 
 c4| 
 
 p. 53 a 
 
 c *< 5 
 « © 2 
 
 i^" I 
 
 
 I2 
 
 d 
 ft 
 
 P4 
 
 
 a 
 
 V 
 
 ii i 
 
 to I- 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r- 
 
 
 
 <- 
 
 
 CO 
 
 u 
 
 
 J 
 
 S 
 
 s 
 
 CI 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 s 
 
 •A 
 
 •-s 
 
 ^ 
 
 <— 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 Ef 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 73 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 C3 
 
 
 jj 
 
 
 X ? 2 
 
 AGENT S EErORT. 
 
 215 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 -* 
 
 
 V 
 
 aju 
 
 a 
 
 S 
 
 
 fe,-^ 
 
 B 
 
 .a 
 
 ^?S 
 
 t: 
 
 it&.if 
 
 =? 
 
 c .:: 
 
 «T 
 
 'S-rS^i 
 
 
 .^^^ 
 
 .SLii = 
 
 .5 ^ 
 - t* 
 w C S 
 C •- 
 
 s 
 
 hi 
 
 t 
 
 I 
 
 c 
 
 ■M 
 
 V 
 
 
 w 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c* 
 
 
 t- 
 
 cr 
 
 
 e*" 
 
 1 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 r. 
 
 s 
 
 
 J-- 
 
 
 £ ^ p- 
 
 cT 
 
 a 
 <1 
 
 e ■ 
 
 C-ti 
 
 F- 
 
 
 ■< 
 
 
 j^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 c 
 
 "^ 1- s 
 
 
 't 
 
 Is 
 
 
 00 
 
 5 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 "i 
 
 - t 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 <i 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 <s 
 
 
 «^ 
 
 c 
 
 ^ 5 £ 
 
 .5 
 
 '=•2 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 
 _C^_I 
 
 »— 
 
 
 li 
 
 1 
 
 
 It 
 
 ] 
 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 e 
 
 EC 
 
 t. 1. -ti 
 
 5 
 is 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 <; 
 
 
 ■< 
 
 -< 
 
 (553 
 
 .Aj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • • ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; :_3 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • •-3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; • a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; ;<) 
 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 c 
 
 ^ 
 
 oc o 
 
 o 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 = = 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 
 
 
 nr 
 
 
 
 
 C 1- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rr 
 
 
 
 
 c^ 
 
 
 1' 
 
 
 O S -J 
 
 g 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 c- 
 
 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 O O T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■» 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 11^ 
 
 •^ 
 
 -25 
 
 irx j 
 
 T 
 
 /"* 
 
 -^ 
 
 «i^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 ^\ 
 
 
 =rt ' 
 
 
 § 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 oo 
 
 • 1 I 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o-r 
 
 ' * I 
 
 
 
 
 ■ o 
 
 
 e 
 
 
 
 CI 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 .4 
 
 \ 1 • 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 •VJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 c^ 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 u^- c^ 
 
 ' * I 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 «»' 
 
 
 IT 
 
 
 
 i-T 
 
 
 
 
 sin 
 
 : : : 
 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C5 
 
 
 
 C5 
 
 
 ■ j : j 
 
 _2 
 
 c 
 
 .. 
 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 .«-> 
 
 
 P^ 
 
 < 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 c 
 
 ■s 
 
 >; 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 1 c 
 
 ; c 
 
 >! : ; 
 
 
 > 
 ^ 
 
 ~ 5 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 5 
 
 o 
 
 S 
 O 
 
 
 "a 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 I 35 
 
 S 
 
 5 Ml 
 
 
 ? 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 : "^ 
 
 5^^;^ 
 
 
 ir 
 
 "9« 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ~^~ 
 
 •» 
 
 
 n 
 
 ! T 
 
 CI^^« 
 
 :c 
 
 <o 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 <3 
 
 
 to 
 
 o 
 
 «: -.i V5 
 
 •o ■ i 
 
 X 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 fX. 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 . 00 
 
 a 1. 7u 
 
 Tj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 I— 
 
 • r-^ 
 
 
 
 
 -3 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 s' 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 1*" 
 
 ! 1 
 
 " Cl'^qT r 
 
 r 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 E&4 
 
 1 
 
 CI 1 
 
 S5 
 
 1 
 
 z 
 
 t»! 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 ^^ 
 
 , X 
 
 5° 
 
 QC 
 
 — 
 
 ? 
 
 >. S 
 
 ' X X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 ^- 
 
 
 5 
 3 
 
 II 
 
 o 
 
 C 
 
 c 
 t 
 
 X 
 
 
 = J5 
 
 S c! 
 
 g ■'AW 
 
 ■ «, i a 
 
 pel! 
 
 
 
 
 
 cc :. 
 
 C >) 
 
 
 c; 
 
 >. 
 
 r*. . "^ 
 
 x-r >. i 
 
 ■^ w 
 
 
 
 -.5 
 
 
 3 
 
 «1 
 
 C3 
 
 fe 
 
 3 
 
 - X 
 
 .ii 
 
 — >, Ci 
 
 T .ts *- *^ 
 
 "5 *^ 
 
 2 a 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 < 
 
 j; 
 
 
 a 
 
 = •3 
 
 a 
 
 
 s 
 Si, 
 
 c = 
 
 
 "-^ ir-c S 
 
 ii 
 
 
 
 c 
 e 
 
 1 
 
 .^ a 
 
 
 =' of '1 
 
 o 
 
 T 
 
 QC 
 
 
 « « 5 
 
 
 =1 
 
 -"E 
 
 2 
 
 
 J 
 
 2 
 
 ■si S. 
 6 - 
 
 C 
 1 
 
 
 
 IS 
 
 c 
 s 
 
 II 
 
 x73 f 
 
 111 
 
 2 5 =-5 
 
 ** = = = 
 
 a £. 
 ^1 
 
 :- 
 
 P 
 
 
 fi 
 
 e- 
 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 
 s< 
 
 3 E-i 
 
 ^hmO 
 
 S 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 'c 
 
 • 
 
 if a 
 
 
 -5 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 • q • 
 
 ; ?t : 
 
 ^ 3 
 
 i 
 
 
 etf 
 
 
 
 C! 
 
 
 U 
 
 c 
 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 
 
 a 
 
 ^ 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 3 
 
 m 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 "^'S' 
 
 'i 
 
 tl 
 
 
 S 
 
 b 
 
 
 « 
 
 I 
 
 . 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i =. 
 
 a 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 CS 
 
 i 
 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 r 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 V 
 
 
 |s_ 
 
 >4 
 
 4 
 
 
 •s 
 
 |'=^- 
 
 
 CI 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 is 
 
 
 «"" 
 
 •-^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 (5 (So 
 
 % 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 4-« 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 ?i 
 
 
 p 
 
 s 
 
 I- P<- 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 ■w 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 •<r 
 
 •«• -r ■»■ 
 
 'T 
 
 ' 
 
216 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 
 q 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 «»4 
 
 oT 
 
 e-r 
 
 o 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 *N 
 
 «M 
 
 f3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 to 
 
 S) 
 
 f, 
 
 p 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 rs 
 
 -1 
 
 <1 
 
 <) 
 
 Es 
 
 fS 
 
 •c 
 
 « 
 
 
 c; 
 
 ^ 
 
 w 
 
 S 
 
 fct 
 
 Es 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 mt 
 
 ^ 
 
 00 
 
 n 
 »- 
 
 00 
 
 i2 P 
 
 fi ft 
 
 re 
 
 rn 
 
 s 
 
 
 <1 
 
 <) 
 
 
 "2 
 
 fe 
 
 i; 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 "5 
 
 
 
 ft 
 
 P 
 
 C 3 
 
 bf bp 
 
 -S 13 
 
 is & 
 
 ft ft 
 
 
 
 
 
 ft 
 
 r- 
 
 00 
 
 n « 
 
 cj -H £ o> 
 
 
 "S '"H to 
 
 Pt St. s 
 
 is ^ 
 
 1 1 
 ft ft 
 
 »'3 
 
 ■S3 
 
 H U 
 
 ■« -e -K 
 
 
 •3 
 a 
 -1 
 
 f^ 
 
 -3 
 
 ■3 
 
 -a 
 
 s 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 <] 
 
 <j 
 
 <) 
 
 -4 
 
 'T> 
 
 = 
 
 1.'^ 
 
 no 
 
 
 T 
 
 i^ 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 i 
 
 .^ 
 
 o 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 uS 
 
 -3 
 
 a 
 
 IS I 
 
 0-3 O 5 
 
 c 
 
 u V I 
 
 s <) <( 
 
 1.1 
 
 s 
 
 
 00 fti 
 
 4» 
 
 o 
 ->1 
 
 
 > t> 
 
 > > 
 
 •3 
 
 .^ ^ 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 — 
 
 rt 
 
 rt 
 
 rt 
 
 .2 
 
 ^ 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 <) 
 
 -fl 
 
 <1 
 
 
 -» 
 
 43 
 
 .9 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 ca 
 
 =a 
 
 s 
 
 CO 
 
 to 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 » 
 
 «> 
 
 to 
 
 a 
 _a 
 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 « 
 
 es 
 
 rt 
 
 n 
 
 •a 
 
 J 
 
 J3 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 -ij 
 
 < 
 
 <1 
 
 < 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 f3 
 
 
 
 
 
 C5 
 
 a 
 
 03 
 
 
 CO 
 
 m 
 
 VI 
 
 t/j 
 
 I" 
 
 •^ 
 
 •^ 
 
 'I' 
 
 
 S 
 
 n 
 
 <£> 
 
 
 XI 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 fH 
 
 1-( 
 
 fh 
 
 T-( 
 
 o 
 
 CI 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 
 a 
 .a 
 
 c3 
 
 es 
 
 a 
 
 I 4 q 
 
 CO 
 
 a o u 
 
 e3 
 
 ^ 
 ^ 
 
 00 
 
 S 5 
 
 u 
 O 
 
 5 5 a 5 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 u 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 ■s 
 
 i 
 
 ;! 
 
 : a 
 
 - M <5 
 
 P (. OJ 
 -■OX 
 
 « C3 C 
 
 a c;; >: 
 
 *j . a i^o 
 
 -3 
 8-3 
 
 ri a 
 a 
 
 « * ' 
 
 H JS 
 rt « o 
 
 «££ 
 
 (» c^ 
 .- rt'«3 
 
 a.2 o 
 P 
 
 ,2-M o 
 h s 
 
 a.c;4J 
 a a 2 
 .5.= ,= 
 
 _ es 
 
 tc' 
 
 a 
 
 'S 
 
 ■3 tc a Q 3 
 
 .:=.= -S-s 
 
 « s rt CO 9 
 o --■ . .« 
 
 fcc t ^ ,v » a 
 o.a >i t.3 » 
 ^+-^ i a.ui 
 
 bi >V3 o *^ -M 
 
 5i.S5o^2 
 
 B-^ « «S'3 » 
 
 S .. aj s ■*-- a.a 
 tc ^' M -S CO' es *^ 
 
 3-g S^ = .lS = !a 
 
 ,a es- 
 
 = i2 
 .;■! 
 
 C es £, 
 
 ■S§1 
 
 i ,i a o 
 : c3 ,i: « 
 
 *; 5 ^ -^ .J 
 :Sir-cc2 3 
 : 2 S^ « m 
 i^ es'l cs 
 
 P "=' S s 5 
 ) tsg a; e^ 
 
 E--. a a £ s 
 
 eS 3 -; C 
 
 *< o liJi 3 
 
 3 =5 —a 2 
 
 a _^ 
 
 ■g a ^5 
 
 Bum * "*' _ 
 
 ^ >< P 5 c ;; 
 5^ u - ^ ^ 
 
 a i it's ,^ 
 
 »"33.9"SS !»' 
 
 - a es 3 'r 
 
 ^ es t. £ ,-= - 
 
 •s « o i:-_- o-= 
 
 ts ♦j.S s a S es 
 
 a a 
 
 f|1 
 £=-^ 
 
 ■a i 
 
 -W 
 
 tcS 
 aaj 
 
 .3 
 
 3^ 
 
 2 5 
 
 = 
 
 o 
 
 .a 
 
 tt 
 
 _a 
 
 3 
 ft . 
 
 ■7. ? 
 
 O es 
 
 o« 
 » 9 a 
 
 5' 
 3 « 
 
 a . c 
 
 x'S 
 
 V a 
 
 C " cSi 
 
 c3-= 
 
 
 a,*" « 5 2 
 '3 *^ is ~ " 
 
 P 
 
 i 5 f 
 
 
 o 2 
 
 tc ■S'3 
 . '- " 
 
 .a -^ -^ 
 
 co5r 
 '3tBa 
 
 = •3 
 
 a 
 
 II 
 
 to 
 
 a 
 
 ••■4 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 M 
 H 
 
 a ■ a 
 
 a 3 
 (SPh 
 
 Su 
 
 ^ 
 
 i25 -3 
 
 >.- S *> -3 
 1=^ 2^:2 
 
 •S >.5 a es aX 
 "S'S "^'E'S 1^ 
 g SwH ee BtO 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 & 
 a 
 cs 
 
 CO 
 
 IS 
 
 0) 
 
 CD 
 
 4 
 
 ^n' 
 
 o 
 
 V 
 
 b 
 
 pq 
 
 3 
 
 s 
 
 es 
 CO 
 
 es : 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 .2 5 
 
 n 
 
 a 
 
 j3 «- 3s « 
 
 H O 
 
 iH 01 n 
 
1 
 
 5 
 
 n 
 
 ■>!)• 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ?5 
 
 
 ■■£> 
 
 ,3 
 
 6 «i 
 
 eft 
 
 .2 
 
 el 
 •73 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 pie' 
 
 3 
 
 s 
 
 3 
 
 
 CS 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 "E 
 
 
 >- 
 
 
 cs 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 s 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 -J 
 
 .■•) 
 
 7! 
 
 ?. 
 
 2 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 "ffl 
 
 s 
 
 •^s 
 
 -= 
 
 'C 
 
 c 
 
 ts 
 
 a 
 
 M 
 
 J< 
 
 P 
 
 
 n 
 
 h 
 
 a 
 
 CS 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 s 
 
 a 
 
 >> 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 
 f— 
 
 xsa 
 
 a; 
 
 r* 
 
 «M 
 
 ?< 
 
 b 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 « 
 
 ■■ 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 -d 
 
 
 
 'r 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 
 U 
 
 Z 
 
 h 
 
 (^ 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 b 
 
 H 
 
 c 
 
 a 2 
 
 « 2 
 
 agent's report. 
 
 217 
 
 r- 
 
 «• 
 
 
 c* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 to 
 
 
 ao 
 
 
 w" 
 
 ri 
 
 !-•" 
 
 ri 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 h 
 
 cc 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 EC 
 
 s 
 
 t- 
 
 3 
 
 «-" 
 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 a 
 
 tJD 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 b 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 a. 
 
 
 Si 
 
 1! 
 
 
 -3 
 
 % 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 fe 
 
 ■s 
 
 !S 
 
 t 
 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 = 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •7 
 
 s 
 
 f? 
 
 a 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 e 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 2 
 
 M O 
 
 I- o 
 
 •»• o 
 
 i-< o 
 
 2 " S 
 
 ttj 
 
 "3 
 
 a 
 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 IS 
 
 a 
 
 cs 
 
 i 
 
 s 
 u 
 
 73 
 
 o f-i ;s 
 
 a 
 
 9 
 u 
 
 "a 
 O 
 
 c so 
 W WW 
 
 w 
 
 w w 
 
 CJ 
 
 5 
 
 e o 
 
 o 
 
 ^Ji! 
 
 ^ 
 
 rt S 
 
 cs 
 
 1-!^ 
 
 1^ 
 
 s a 
 CO 
 
 a 
 O 
 
 cs 
 
 a 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 sac fi.o, s, Oi P4 
 3 i-B as tccc oj oi CO 
 
 it' 
 
 hs a 
 
 af* 
 
 ^ 
 
 CCZ> 
 
 E a 
 
 Sd a « .i ► " o 
 
 o a 
 
 c.s 
 
 3 5= . 2 a 
 - ft, a a .*! 
 
 b U 
 
 
 a 
 Is 
 
 ^«4S-S 
 
 a.£»s£§-3 
 
 e 53 ,, « 1. = < 
 
 a 
 
 
 -* b a 
 
 ^-"^ 
 a - 
 
 S3 
 
 « S 
 
 O * g 
 
 £f|2 3 
 a3t: 3 
 " a U 
 
 |.H s >..3 5^ p ■£ 2 a 
 
 a 
 p. 
 ><^ . 
 
 "= 22 = '-'•5'C 
 
 t. ■•" r *- a 
 ^0«a£fcP 
 
 a 
 
 a -S J -^ -^ « £ 
 
 ■^ o ~ -s; « 5 s 
 
 IB a 5 u = a >,. 
 fc a-S-^ aA<.a 
 
 a -* 3 
 = = ^ "^ i 
 
 Si c 5=2 
 
 cS a « s 
 ar c K J 
 a 1^ a "^ ■*^ 
 
 <i 
 
 ^ a . 
 a. a a 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 a a 
 
 n 
 
 a 
 
 n 
 
 .3 
 
 II 
 
 5 « 
 
 a 
 
 S? 
 
 -«) 
 
 5 a ??»> 
 
 > 
 
 
 'i 
 
 
 ?1 $ .' 11 
 
inSTDEX. 
 
 BRITISH CASES. 
 
 pl 
 
 
 m 
 
 Um 
 
 ym 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 m 
 
 1 
 
 A. 
 
 Ho 
 
 Adam, William 72 
 
 Adhtni, Geoifjo 40 
 
 Alexander, K. S. C. A., execiitors of the estate of 45 
 
 Alsop, Francis 55 
 
 Almond, William 407 
 
 Amy, John, trustee, «fec., et al., htlg Volant 388 
 
 Anderson, William li 114 
 
 Anderson, Saxon & Co 2',VJ 
 
 Amireae, Theodore 4.')!) 
 
 Aiijjel, Thomas Elliott, et al., bark Science IWl 
 
 Arkwrijfht, Thomajs 30;i 
 
 Armitage, Laura 305 
 
 Arniita<;e, Robert ! 348 
 
 Armstronjr, Elizabeth, administratrix 251 
 
 Armstrong, Robert 251 
 
 Armstroiifj, Walter 45^3 
 
 Ashtou. William 3'>5 
 
 Atkin, Robert 475 
 
 Atkinson, Christoplier 381 
 
 Austin, Thomas I'hipys 415 
 
 B. 
 
 Baer, Herman, (M. D.,) administrator 297 
 
 Bailey, William, and William Leetham, etal 38(5 
 
 Bain, James 231 
 
 Baines, Ebenezer 106 
 
 Barker, Henry James, mortgagee 432 
 
 Barclay, Anthony 5 
 
 Barnesl V, Godfrey 1(52 
 
 Barrett" Ed. Alfred 18 
 
 Barrow, Mai-y Ann, administratrix 343 
 
 Barrow, George 343 
 
 Bari'on, Forbes, &Co 314 
 
 Barton, Alice, executrix 242 
 
 Barton, Richard C 212 
 
 Barrv, Thom.as 127 
 
 Bates Edward, (M. P.) 429 
 
 Bateman, Charles D WO 
 
 Battersby, William 3t)() 
 
 Beattie, James M 119 
 
 Beattie, William C 445 
 
 Bell, Conway 179 
 
 Bell, MatherweJl M 274 
 
 Bell, Peter, and William Scott 382 
 
 Bennett, William H 137 
 
 Bennett, Ed. J., alias Arto Croger 159 
 
 Bennett, Elizabeth, executrix 471 
 
 Bennett, Benjamin 471 
 
 Bevitt, Joseph Jacksou 104 
 
 Bigland, Amos 199 
 
 Binney, Joseph Walker 352 
 
 Bird, James 245,428 
 
 Birdsell, Wilhelmina 218 
 
 Black, Charles 123 
 
 Biackburne, O. P , 477 
 
 SS! ,, .I*'* 
 
agent's report. 
 
 219 
 
 4:'.2 
 5 
 1()2 
 18 
 343 
 343 
 314 
 242 
 212 
 127 
 429 
 H>0 
 3l)G 
 11!) 
 445 
 179 
 274 
 382 
 137 
 159 
 471 
 471 
 104 
 199 
 352 
 .245,428 
 218 
 123 
 477 
 
 Xo. 
 
 Holin, HnnryG 342 
 
 liMrt'oii, Jiniius 144 
 
 lio\v(l»!ii, Koliort 41'J 
 
 Bi)\vie, Elizal».'tli L. 11 320 
 
 liowmaii, Williiiiu 47rt 
 
 Booth, William H 143 
 
 IJoHtock, Eli/abotli 133 
 
 Boyil, Rev. Frederick \V 54 
 
 Braithwaito, .Jonatliaii 3i 
 
 Bradley, Stephen J 337 
 
 Brain, Elizabeth 447 
 
 Brain, John 44? 
 
 Brand, Jane L IHq 
 
 Bretherick, BiMij. J 2(5l 
 
 ]{retherick, (Jeo. M 25rj 
 
 Briti.sh ami Foroiyn Marine Insurance Company 245, 42fj 
 
 Brook, Sanmel.... .' l)<) 
 
 Brown, Andrew <>;{ 
 
 Brown, Andrew 11-2 
 
 Browne, JoMt^ih J 37 
 
 Brown, Willliam 2(^0 
 
 Brown &. Sharp 3^ 
 
 Browne, David J 17o 
 
 Browne, David J 327 
 
 Brnce, VV.J 29 
 
 Bull,JaiH«, : 2O9 
 
 Burden, J(din C 31^ 
 
 Burden, Ein ma (}., administratrix 3lj 
 
 Burke, Ellen, heirs of 13q 
 
 Burnsido, John 5;^ 
 
 Burton, William John I74 
 
 Butterworth, Jno.,and Jno. Ho worth, executors 35;} 
 
 Byrne, John K 20„ 
 
 Bj rue, Thomas 20(3 
 
 Byrne, Andrew E.,i't al 31r, 
 
 Byrne, Thomas 34() 
 
 Byrnes, Roderick 21*3 
 
 C. 
 
 Cairns & Co., John 39 
 
 Calderwood, Martha M., executrix 3(10 
 
 Calderwood,,John 3(>0 
 
 Campbell, A. E., &. Co 290 
 
 Campbell, S. Isaac, & Co 31G 
 
 Campbell, George 453 
 
 Care w, John 224 
 
 Carlisle, Hnj;h 319 
 
 Carmalt.John W 89 
 
 Carmody , John 85 
 
 Carroll, Francis 44G 
 
 Carson, Robert M 178 
 
 Cauty, George F 443 
 
 Cleary, William 220 
 
 Clements, Neheraiah K 107 
 
 Cleveland, Mary C 69 
 
 Cleworth, Charles 48 
 
 Coates, Thomas 332 
 
 Cogan, William " 19(J 
 
 Cogan, William, executor 242 
 
 Coleman, Charles 232 
 
 Colemau.L.L.L., administratrix 232 
 
 Collie, Alexander, e< al !W5 
 
 Collie, Alexander, e< al 376 
 
 Collie, George 458 
 
 Cooper, George 28;J 
 
 Cornwall, Isaac B. and Eliza B 140 
 
 Corry.T.A 243 
 
 Cowley, John J 291 
 
 Cox, Henry E., and Alfred 229 
 
 (.•■'■'? 
 
if 
 
 i ■:) 
 
 220 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 Crawford, John Isnncs 71) 
 
 CreiKliton,.J.G.A.,& Co :»7rt 
 
 CroNH, John K.,hihI Edward IttW 
 
 CroHHc, Thomas N '.\'>0 
 
 Crow & Wvlio ;')<» 
 
 Crowthor Lhnvolyu , 'M'i 
 
 Cnitchott, James 4 
 
 Ciuimiug, James and Sarah P 94 
 
 D. 
 
 Daiy, Charies 143 
 
 Dalgety, l)n Croz «&, Co., eoiisifjnees 4(il 
 
 Danserean, Pierre ()7 
 
 DavidHon (Hi 
 
 Df^acoM, Tliomas L h7 
 
 Dean, William, & Co '.Mm 
 
 Dean, Philip G. B Hm 
 
 DiM^hen, John 211(1 
 
 Digniim, Robert )5(IS 
 
 Dobbins, Walter John 25 
 
 Donnelly, Bernard, administrator 3'2'.) 
 
 Donnelly, William HI 
 
 Dorrinj^ton, James 'MH 
 
 Dowling, Timothy 30 
 
 Downinfi;, Hannah R 4r)0 
 
 Doyle, Francis 46 
 
 Dronke, Ernest 371 
 
 Dnrty, Alieeand Ellen If.O 
 
 Dunn, William 10 
 
 E. 
 
 Eagin, Patrick, iidniinistrator 81 
 
 Eakin, Robert 118 
 
 Easton, Walker, trustee, &c 3t)0 
 
 Eastou, Walter, assij^neo 431) 
 
 Edgeley, Thomas, et <il 441 
 
 Elsworth, Ernest 4'2(] 
 
 Elsworth, John 438 
 
 Elsworth, John Henry 390,421 
 
 Eneas, Joseph 12G 
 
 English and Scottish Marino Insnrauco Company 245,428 
 
 Eustice, Richard Henry l()(i 
 
 Evans, Arthur C. and Frances 26:} 
 
 Faill, James, and J. McCulIoch, executors 452 
 
 Facer, Thomas Howard 203 
 
 Fagan, James 50 
 
 Ferris, John C, administrator 212 
 
 Fisher, William Henry 37i) 
 
 Fleming, George 405 
 
 Fleming, Charles 309 
 
 Fogg, Samuel 436 
 
 Forbes, John Carmichael 300 
 
 Ford, Curtis & Curtis 409 
 
 Ford, William G., administrator 328 
 
 Forwood, Arthur B., and James Dorriugton .^ 392 
 
 Forwood, William Bower 394 
 
 Fox, Patrick 336 
 
 Fraser, Donald 455 
 
 Eraser, Thomas 91 
 
 Frost, Frederick D., et al 414 
 
 G. 
 
 Gabriel, Thomaa, & Sons 840 
 
 Gale, John '. 247 
 
agent's report. 
 
 221 
 
 No. 
 
 fJalltmith, John Oriilmm 39(),4;«» 
 
 (ialliclmn, M - :«'^'"^ 
 
 (Janctt, Liicy !''•) twliuiiii»tnitrix ;«•'.) 
 
 (iiiiry, Mitiliat'l <iO 
 
 (iaii^rlK^ii, Joliii 77 
 
 (ilMlllllill, Jiimt'H H-' 
 
 Giininl, Edwin, asHiKin-is '-^'♦•^ 
 
 Ot'iiird, Edwin, asMij;nt!c '^44 
 
 Gtfrard, Edwin, aHsij^noo ^45 
 
 Gibson, Rohurt TiO 
 
 Gilland, Eniilv J '271) 
 
 Gilliat, William Henry y-») 
 
 GiniHon, William y.'')4 
 
 Glover, Konrv 1!'4 
 
 Goldinp, William l'2'2 
 
 Grace, Michael V.\2 
 
 Grunt, ThonniH 211 
 
 Grant, William M H-* 
 
 Grant, Brodie, »fc Co 4'<J4 
 
 Graveley, Cowlam iiU'i 
 
 (irayson, Ann, administratrix 2\)l 
 
 Green, Charles Itil 
 
 Gribble, Joseph 1 Ui 
 
 Grongan, Anna C, executrix ir>r) 
 
 Grongan, Patrick R ir)5 
 
 Guiumer, John '^1 
 
 H. 
 
 Haddon, Samnel Hall 107 
 
 Hall, William E 'M\\ 
 
 Hall, Richard WIS 
 
 Halley, James H., administrator 205 
 
 Hannah, John Hcduies 2 
 
 Hannah, Alexander M 472 
 
 Hansberry, William l(ii) 
 
 Harris, John H 113 
 
 Harris, John B 124 
 
 Harrison, David and Thomas '.H\7 
 
 Harvey, Eugenius, et al 214 
 
 Haskins, John 301 
 
 Hayes, Ann 158 
 
 Hayes, Lizzie, and Sallio Bonn 100 
 
 Hay ward, Oliver C 176 
 
 Hebdou, Thomas 2()7 
 
 Henderson, Henry 41 
 
 Hennegan. John Joseph 148 
 
 Henry, A. S. & Co * 243 
 
 Henry, William P 1411 
 
 Hewetson, Barry Drew 2U7 
 
 Heycock, Jos. B., administrator 2(53 
 
 -^ I I 11 t \j II €1 I IC'C) ■ !■• ■«*»■•■**«■ _•>■ >aas •>*>>■•>•«>• aataaa savsaa ■*>■•• ■«*•>•> ••«■• 1^ 4 *W 
 
 Hill, John 123 
 
 Hill,Mary Sophia 8 
 
 Hill, iMary Sophia 198 
 
 Hine, Mundella «fe Co 425 
 
 Hodges, Charles 355 
 
 Hodges, William R 354 
 
 Hogan, Rosanua 221 
 
 Holgate, James 410 
 
 Holt, Henry 73 
 
 Horton, Henry 437 
 
 Howorth, John, executor 353 
 
 Hughes, James K (58 
 
 Hughes, William, administrator of estate oi 58 
 
 Hutchinson, Mary 277 
 
 Hutchinson, Alexander W 4(52 
 
 1 
 
 r i:- 
 
 ■■ .^'1 
 
fl^-TT. 
 
 I! J 
 
 ri 
 
 , 
 
 
 'fflBirn 
 
 222 
 
 AMERICAN-HKITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 I. 
 
 N.I. 
 
 Iniiian, Rirliard W Vil 
 
 Iiiipy, rraiiciH (i'i 
 
 IimnraiKM* CoinpaiiieH and UnderwrlteiH at LloydH 444 
 
 Irwin, Mary !l<il 
 
 Irwin, William : Kt 
 
 Irviii, Samuel »& Co '<V2'i 
 
 Isaac, *amn«^l '47 \ 
 
 Ivey, William and John 4 18 
 
 J. 
 
 JnckHon, Jolui 2'w 
 
 JiK-kson, Susan HaiU^y '«i')"2 
 
 •lacobH, David ^i'M't 
 
 tJacnlm, Henry S Ki:! 
 
 Jarbou, Saiimel, guardian IWU 
 
 Jarman, 8te|di«Mi, and Charles F. Smith 417 
 
 Jarman, Stephen 41'^ 
 
 Jay, Eliza J.,adminiHtnitrix iHtl 
 
 Jay, JamcH Iriti 
 
 ,f(ihnst«>n, Andrew L '.Mi 
 
 JoluiHon, Catharino J,, executrix ... 44i( 
 
 Johnson, Charles (14 
 
 Johnst(m, Peter 10 
 
 Junes, Georyo J , - 270 
 
 K. 
 
 Kater, John 19 
 
 Kay, Henry 3r)H 
 
 Keiioe, Martin I'-i.') 
 
 Keith, William llVi 
 
 Kelly, Michael XW 
 
 Kennedy, John W 120 
 
 Kerford, George B , 4f)8 
 
 Kernahan, A 151 
 
 Kergan, Thomas 3:W 
 
 Knighton, Eliza 188 
 
 Knowles, Elizabeth 17') 
 
 King, Oliver K 288 
 
 L. 
 
 Lafono, Alfred 411 
 
 Lufone, Henry, and John T. Lawrence 389 
 
 Lafoue, Henry, and John T. Lawrence 4U0 
 
 Lane, William Henry 9 
 
 Lanrie,Son & Co 321 
 
 Lavell, Bridget , 131 
 
 Lawrence, John T 389, 430, 431 
 
 Laycock, J , . 243 
 
 Leach, Thomas 189 
 
 Leach, Thomas . 289 
 
 LeConterre,E 388 
 
 LeCra8,J 388 
 
 Lee, Joseph , 219 
 
 Leech, Harrison »fe Forwood 393 
 
 LeGros,T. C 388 
 
 Lemonius &Co 384 
 
 Lemienx, Nazairo 215 
 
 Le Questie, Charles, etal , 395 
 
 Lc5>lie, James 252 
 
 Levy, Samuel G 61 
 
 Lewtn-s, Henry A 457 
 
 Lewis, John L 201 
 
 Lewis, Sheldon 287 
 
 Lloyds, underwriters of 244,245,444 
 
 Loft, John, mortgagee 387 
 
N.I, 
 444 
 
 ■^71 
 4Jfi 
 
 2;").') 
 
 2'^'i 
 
 .... Ki:'. 
 
 .... :»','ii 
 
 .... 417 
 
 41H 
 
 ]H) 
 
 iHi; 
 
 DC) 
 
 44i» 
 
 r.4 
 
 If. 
 
 27G 
 
 19 
 
 3r.3 
 
 1-25 
 
 un 
 
 -xw 
 
 I'iO 
 
 4(W 
 
 151 
 
 3:w 
 
 188 
 
 175 
 
 288 
 
 411 
 
 38'J 
 
 4:50 
 
 9 
 
 3-21 
 
 i:u 
 
 389, 430, 431 
 
 243 
 
 . .. 189 
 
 289 
 
 388 
 
 388 
 
 219 
 
 , 393 
 
 , 388 
 
 384 
 
 215 
 
 395 
 
 252 
 
 61 
 
 ... 457 
 
 201 
 
 287 
 
 .244,245,444 
 387 
 
 agent's report. 223 
 
 Lonjj. -TamPH 841 
 
 LiiiiiK'Kiiii.'Joliu J 117 
 
 Liincli, Aiiim 4i:i 
 
 Lowe, Williiiiu 12U 
 
 M. 
 
 Mi1»«n, Thomas S.,a(liiiiiiiHti'ator IIU 
 
 Miicuiilov, .JaiiiCH A 21)0 
 
 Ma V, ThoiiuiH 44*i 
 
 M.^Anally, Patrick 473 
 
 M('Maiii,.loliii (t 30 
 
 JieCabo, Kilwartl 11)7 
 
 MoCabo, James 24 
 
 Macoiichy, Hoiiora 80 
 
 Maf?uir«s Aniiilial 3d 
 
 Maudor, CliarloH 110 
 
 Manvvariiig, Jolm 7(? 
 
 Marcliei, Jamos IH'i 
 
 Marshall, Norton, cxfcutor 183 
 
 MarHhall, William T , 40-i 
 
 Martin, Jamus and Richard 434 
 
 Ma«ou,Janot, administratrix 445 
 
 Mayhew, Cliarles 17*i 
 
 McC'ann,.John 173 
 
 McClure, Janet M 202 
 
 McClure, William IJ lO'i 
 
 McColl, Normen W., administrator 307 
 
 McColi, Hugh 307 
 
 McCnlloch.John M 452 
 
 McDaniel, James 1(W 
 
 McDonald, Angustino Ralph 42 
 
 McDonald, Angnstine Ralph 334 
 
 McDowell, Thonnis 15 
 
 McDowell & Haliday 397 
 
 Mcfllhose, James H 225 
 
 McEwen, Charles...- 452 
 
 McHngh, Edward, administrator 357 
 
 Mcllngh, James 357 
 
 McKay, William 299 
 
 McKeown, Robert 4()3 
 
 McLean, Stephen 11)1 
 
 McLennan, J<din 370 
 
 McLeod, Ezekiel, assignee 399 
 
 McLeod, Henry A 30($ 
 
 McMahon, Thomas 22 
 
 McMahon, Thomas , 136 
 
 McMillan, Alan K 250 
 
 McStea, Nelson 349 
 
 McVea, James 208 
 
 Meagher, James 317 
 
 Medcalf, John 177 
 
 Mews, John & Co 331 
 
 Millar, William Scott 157 
 
 Miller i&Mossmau 398 
 
 Miller, T. J., a^jas T. F. Sherman 359 
 
 Miller, William 435 
 
 Mills, Harriet A 70 
 
 Milner, Isaac ; 207 
 
 Milner, Joanna R., administratrix 207 
 
 Milner, Sanmel 259 
 
 Mogridge, Joseph Fry 345 
 
 Molyneanx, Eliza H., executrix 323 
 
 Molyneaux, Edmund 323 
 
 Money, George Henry, and James William Bailey 3'>4 
 
 Monroe, James T 2;«j 
 
 Montgomery, Archibald 256 
 
 Montgomery, Robert H 20 
 
 if. 
 
224 
 
 AMERICAX-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 W%'> 
 
 ;rAs' 
 
 
 it'll 
 
 11- 
 
 No, 
 
 Moody, Henry Sfif) 
 
 Moody, Homy A., administrator ati;-) 
 
 Moore, Georj^e - U7 
 
 Moore, Jacob Turner !^4 
 
 Mr)ore, Mary Louisa 3t*'.\ 
 
 Moore, William 7'> 
 
 Moriarty, Michael 470 
 
 Miirdock,Klizaand Jane ai'-i 
 
 Murdock, Marion D (if) 
 
 Mnrpliy, John H'-ili 
 
 Mnrphy, Joseph \ittV) 
 
 Murray, Anne •- 2ti 
 
 Murta, John I'Jf) 
 
 Myers, Charles 374 
 
 N. 
 
 Nairne CharlesM 469 
 
 Neanies, Daniel U liM 
 
 Nelson, Eliza Bailey 140 
 
 Newberry, Aaron 7ri 
 
 Nicol, Alexander 105 
 
 Nicolson, Colin John 2'i;\ 
 
 Noble, John D 2d:j 
 
 Molan, Joseph, M. P 27'2 
 
 Nolau, Mary 27',i 
 
 O. 
 
 O'Bannon, Thomas ; 474 
 
 0'Brvan,C.Ku<,M-nia 21W 
 
 O'Ury an, Perry. 2!W 
 
 O'Connor, Valentine O'B 404 
 
 O'Donuld.John William ;j 
 
 O'Donnell, Hugh lOcJ 
 
 O'Hara, Anne 1155 
 
 O'Keetl'e, James 14 
 
 O'Mnlligaii, Patrick J 47t') 
 
 O'Neil, Jeremiah 141 
 
 Orr, James, and sisters 1^7 
 
 Orrock, Robert 27 
 
 Osborny, Charles ^., ct nl 412 
 
 Overend,Gurney & Co 43:J 
 
 P. 
 
 Palmer, Archibald D 1? 
 
 Park, Jiiicy J., administratrix 2l> 
 
 Parkinson, Istiac D 101 
 
 Parr, Frederick 4r)4 
 
 Parr, John, alias John F 2^5 
 
 Patrick, William l>7 
 
 Patton, Samuel 181 
 
 Peacock, Andrew l»;{ 
 
 Peirson, John 171 
 
 Pembroke, Edward :{77 
 
 Perrv, John !I0 
 
 Phillips, Levi 21:5 
 
 Pollock, Agnes 20") 
 
 Pollock, James 205 
 
 Pothier, Emilia J., executrix ;<04 
 
 Pothier, L. U ;t04 
 
 Potts, Thomas 399,40:1 
 
 Poynton, William B 257 
 
 Pratt, E, William (i 
 
 Pringle, Thomas f^ti 
 
 Pryor.John 142 
 
 Pryor, William K., administrator 142 
 
 Purcell, Edward H. M 204 
 
 Purvis, John, heirs of VM 
 
No. 
 2(m 
 
 57 
 
 7.") 
 470 
 
 ai-i 
 
 '.VM 
 
 ar.ii 
 
 '-it) 
 
 iiif) 
 
 374 
 
 4fi!) 
 laU 
 140 
 78 
 10,-) 
 
 2r.:{ 
 22:5 
 
 27-^ 
 •273 
 
 474 
 
 'iy.i 
 
 404 
 
 3 
 
 108 
 
 135 
 
 14 
 47ti 
 141 
 187 
 
 •27 
 41-2 
 433 
 
 17 
 
 •29 
 101 
 454 
 '285 
 
 il7 
 181 
 
 1)3 
 171 
 377 
 
 IN) 
 '213 
 '205 
 '205 
 304 
 304 
 im, 403 
 «57 
 (i 
 
 88 
 14-2 
 14'2 
 '204 
 138 
 
 agent's report. 
 
 225 
 
 Q. 
 
 No. 
 
 Qnilleii, Percy M .• 164 
 
 B. 
 
 RahiDiiig, John C 7 
 
 Rayius Maltha Ann, iuliiiinistratrix 74 
 
 Ray nt', Robert Parker 74 
 
 Kcadinjr, Kraiik R 43 
 
 Kt'anloii, Brill j^ct '2*22 
 
 Redj^ato, Samuel J 390, 4'20 
 
 Reed. Loiich & Co 413 
 
 Reid.Joiin 451 
 
 Reid, Rol-t-rt M 380 
 
 Keiinieks, John G .*^ 363 
 
 Riley,. John, assignee 442 
 
 Riley, Thomas 19"^ 
 
 l{oac.h,.lohn W VA 
 
 Robert, David 47 
 
 Ri)bertt>, Samuel and Richard 344 
 
 Robin, Andrew 146 
 
 Kobinson, J. G 3*28 
 
 Rof;ers, .iolm I'restou 35 
 
 KoUa.son.Tiiomas Henry 3.58 
 
 Koli)li, Frederick Adams '238 
 
 Kose, W i 1! i a m 303 
 
 Ross, William II 335 
 
 Hujj;<,'les, Frederick W '2()4 
 
 Kyan, Tlionnis 1.5'2 
 
 Ryerson, S. M., vt al 147 
 
 S. 
 
 Sabourin, Charles 268 
 
 Sabourin,.Jane, administratrix ^(W 
 
 Saunders & Sou '281 
 
 Sean Ian, William Erastus 3*2 
 
 Scott, .losepii W •2-26 
 
 N'ott, William .382 
 
 Seal, UiKlerick, admiuistrat r 1'27 
 
 Seelve, Abram H 9d 
 
 Shaiid, llif^.-on A Hoult '270 
 
 Slianiu)n,.lohn 329 
 
 Shari.e,.Jolni W 92 
 
 Shaver, .lolin I .51 
 
 Sherard.Fmily J '279 
 
 Sherard, William '279 
 
 Sherman, F.lizalieth, administratrix 3.59 
 
 Sherman, T. V.,ulia.i T.J. Miller 359 
 
 Sim))son,.Iohn 234 
 
 Simpson, Samiud 217 
 
 Siniiisoii ».V I'itnnin 396 
 
 Sinclair, .loll n 341 
 
 Sinclair, Robert \ Co 440 
 
 Slater, Bernard, «/n»x Charles B Ill 
 
 Slater, William Henry '246 
 
 Sndth, Charles M 109 
 
 Smith,. lanu's B '230 
 
 Smith, .J.din I) 212 
 
 Smith, .John H 156 
 
 Smith, Henrv R 461 
 
 Smith, Charies F 417 
 
 Smith, William Gh»8ter 194 
 
 Smythe, William 333 
 
 Spcarwatcr, Peti-r Ann '2H4 
 
 Spcnce, JuHupli, aud George Fleniiug 405 
 
 Sponce, JoHeph 410 
 
 Spiiiuey.John 2()3 
 
 Sterling, Thomas 12 
 
 15 H 
 
226 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 I'^ 
 
 i 
 
 No. 
 
 Stevart, Charles E 34(i 
 
 St-.Avait Daniel K t 4(10 
 
 ■jttiwait, Klli'ii 8() 
 
 Stewart ,-.lum(H :j:{;t 
 
 Stewart, 'I'lioiiias M D") 
 
 Stewart, William 2Hf* 
 
 Stewart, William H., executor I54t) 
 
 St. John, Henry 14;") 
 
 Stott,.fiinies..' 71 
 
 Stovin,.J()lin Carville \>:j 
 
 Syiiie, .lames, administrator of I'M) 
 
 Synuiiers, Georj^e -. . 'i'<i6 
 
 T. 
 
 Taylor, Geortfo HGS 
 
 Tiianii's & Mersey Marine Insurance Co 4'27 
 
 Thorns, D.i vid Kio 
 
 Thonis, Klizaheth S., administratrix I(i5 
 
 Thompson. Richard II t»:?7 
 
 Thornton, IJenjamin "i&i 
 
 Thnrhei', .l<ilin'A mi 
 
 Tii>i»er, William, and George Taylor ;?(!'.) 
 
 Toiijjjm , .James 49 
 
 Tooraen, Martha M 184 
 
 Tonniev, Catharine 4.")6 
 
 Tovell,'.I..hn 44(1 
 
 Trook,.J. N.. administrator ;" 
 
 Tund)letv, I'rancis 347 
 
 Turner, Eleanor W :{4 
 
 Turner, .John 44 
 
 U. 
 
 Universal Marine In.surance Company i!4.''> 
 
 Um;\vorth,.Johu J 11 
 
 V. 
 
 Vernon, J. McAlister 3G4 
 
 W. 
 
 Walford,. Tames 11') 
 
 Walker, AllVed Kaoul 1:5 
 
 Wa.d, Ii.-d.iieU _ 2i»4 
 
 Ward, Henry <t al 4G() 
 
 Ward, Thomas 1 
 
 Ware, .Joseph E 27") 
 
 Warm-tord, Klizaheth Grace... ;{")1 
 
 Watkins, .lolm (V.,and Ueruard Donuellv, administrators :i2() 
 
 Watkins A Leiuh " 400 
 
 Watson, Strphen 'M'i 
 
 Watt, llnjrh 241* 
 
 Waft, Ki.liert H., administrator a4S 
 
 Watts, Edward H.,and Thomas Edgley 441 
 
 Watts, Sarah i>41» 
 
 Weleh,.Joseidi 185 
 
 Welch, Maryetsoii & Co , 422 
 
 Wetherell, .lames 40() 
 
 White, Ann 27i- 
 
 White, Henry Frederick 2:!:? 
 
 Whitworth, jiiiijamin, et al 21ti 
 
 Whitty. Williau'i :510 
 
 Wiffj;-, ( ieoijre 2Git 
 
 VV\fij{, Georp', and Saul Isaac 271 
 
 Wilkinson,. John 28 
 
 Wilson, Alfred, e/fl/ .. .. 40f^ 
 
 iVifeon &, Armstrong 423 
 
No. 
 
 aid 
 4t;o 
 
 Hi 
 •.y.v.) 
 
 It,') 
 
 :]4t) 
 I4r. 
 
 71 
 
 1:5!) 
 
 
 :}68 
 
 
 427 
 
 
 K).") 
 
 
 I(i5 
 
 
 y:57 
 
 
 . 5>H-J 
 
 
 ytii) 
 
 
 . ;}(;'.» 
 
 
 4i» 
 
 
 . 1H4 
 
 
 . 4r)G 
 
 
 44(1 
 
 
 34; 
 
 
 :{4 
 
 
 44 
 
 
 245 
 
 
 11 
 
 364 
 
 11". 
 
 1:5 
 
 2l»4 
 
 4G(; 
 1 
 
 275 
 
 :{5i 
 :i2!) 
 
 400 
 
 :{72 
 
 24^- 
 24-' 
 441 
 2411 
 
 m> 
 
 422 
 
 40(1 
 27.- 
 
 2:{:{ 
 
 21ti 
 
 :m 
 
 2()lt 
 271 
 
 26 
 40M 
 423 
 
 1^ 
 
 AGENT S REPORT. 
 
 227 
 
 No. 
 
 WilHOii, Bowles & Co 409 
 
 Wilson.. Joliii N 210 
 
 Wilson, Miittliisw , J 4(i7 
 
 Wisdom, William Henry 52 
 
 Wood, Gv'orge iind Edward, and L. Hey worth 103 
 
 Wostenliolm, George 205 
 
 Wrif.'-lit, Charles 227 
 
 Y. 
 Young, John 245,428 
 
 AMERICAN CASES. 
 
 Ashley, W^alter Oliver 
 
 Harlow, Hradlev, receiver of Baint Albans Bank 
 
 Braiiierd, A'dis O , 
 
 Brec'k, Samuel, and Jonathan Wetherbee, jr 
 
 Buck, Richard P 
 
 Burton, Oscar A., receivc^r 
 
 Bush. Frederick T.,('l nl , 
 
 Cl(Uigh, Lucien B., administrator 
 
 Curtis, Francis, ami Samuel P^udicott Peabody .. 
 
 Everest, Charles F 
 
 Field, Miiriaette, admiuistratri.x; 
 
 Field, Sy 1 v<'ster 
 
 First National Bank of Saint Albans , 
 
 Fuller, W^illiam and Erasmus D 
 
 Hnbbell, William W^Uilci 
 
 Huntington, Collins H 
 
 Langdon,Seth W 
 
 Morrison, Eliuas J 
 
 Peabody, Saunud E 
 
 Saint Albans Bank 
 
 Tri])}), Josiah Wilson 
 
 Wales, Thomas K.,etal 
 
 Weeks, .Joseph S 
 
 Wetherbee, Jonathan, jr 
 
 SHIP CASES. 
 
 'Umes of ve wels. 
 
 of 
 
 Adel. . . 
 Adela. ea., 
 
 Adelso 
 
 Agues, and cargo 
 
 Agnes, .and can'o 
 
 Aigburth 
 
 Albion, and cargo 
 
 Alert, and cargo 
 
 .\melia, part of cargo of. 
 
 '••'uui, and carg-.' 
 
 Ai ic Sophia, aad cargo. 
 AiC'.\c aud cargo 
 
 'Vl';' ■''::>: 
 
 Ai;, luut, cargo of 
 
 Ariel 
 
 Banshee.. . 
 
 Blanche, part cargo of . . 
 Boyne 
 
 Names of claimants. 
 
 Forwood & Dorrington 
 
 Leeeh, Harrison & Forwood. 
 
 Henry IJorton. 
 
 Saunders A Sous. 
 
 1(1 
 
 Cowlaui fTrav«'le,'i 
 
 Saumlers «v oous 
 
 do 
 
 J. \V. Carnuilt 
 
 Saunders & Sons 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 .Jos. B. I I<'ycoek 
 
 Fn^derick W. Kuggles 
 
 R. M. Carson 
 
 ■John T. Laurence 
 
 Janu's A. Macaulay 
 
 Beujamiu Wbitworth et al. 
 
 19 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 1« 
 
 13 
 
 11 
 
 14 
 
 18 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 .5 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 17 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 14 
 
 18 
 
 4 
 
 15 
 
 12 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 No. 
 
 392 
 393 
 
 4.r/ 
 
 281 
 281 
 292 
 281 
 281 
 HJ) 
 281 
 281 
 281 
 2(i3 
 2(14 
 178 
 431 
 2()0 
 21G 
 
 \'\''' 
 
';'!« 
 
 228 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 Names of vessels. 
 
 Brillinnt, ami cargo.. 
 
 Chance, and cargo 
 
 Circassian 
 
 Circassian, freight of 
 Circassian, cargo of. . 
 Daring 
 
 Daring 
 
 Dashing Wave, part cargo of 
 
 Dasliing Wave, ownors of 
 
 Dashing Wave, part cargo of 
 
 Dashing Wave, part cargo of 
 
 Dasliing Wave, iusnrance on cargo of. 
 Dashing Wave, insnrance on cargo of. 
 
 Defiance, and cargo 
 
 D. F. K.-ling 
 
 Doll>hin, i)art cargo, &c., of .. 
 
 Donro 
 
 Eagle 
 
 Echo 
 
 Emma Henry, and cargo 
 
 Empress 
 
 Fanny, and cargo 
 
 Florida, and cargo 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Geziena Helligonda, cargo of . 
 
 Granit<' City 
 
 Greyhound, and cargo 
 
 Hiiivvatha, owners of 
 
 Hiawatha 
 
 Hiawatha, part cargo of 
 
 Hiawatha, i)art cargo oi' 
 
 Hiawatha, jiart cargo of 
 
 Hiawatha, illegal imi)risonment captain 
 of. 
 
 Hiawatha, part cargo of 
 
 Hiya 
 
 Industry, and cargo 
 
 Isahcl. cai'go of 
 
 Isabella Tliomiison, cargo of 
 
 Isahclla Thompson, owners of 
 
 James Douglass 
 
 Jane (.'amphell 
 
 J. ('. Hoker, aud cargo 
 
 John \V. and cargo 
 
 John Wthh, part cargo of 
 
 Julia, and cargo 
 
 Julia, and cargo 
 
 Laliuau 
 
 lia Criolla, and cargo 
 
 Lida, and cargo 
 
 Lillian, and cargo 
 
 Lizzie, and cargo 
 
 Lucy, and cargo 
 
 Malawi, an<l cargo 
 
 Maderia 
 
 Mary Stuart, and cargo 
 
 Matamoras 
 
 Matilda A. Lewis 
 
 Minnie 
 
 Monmouth 
 
 M. S. Perry 
 
 Napi«r, owners of 
 
 Names of claimants. 
 
 Saunders & Sons 
 
 do 
 
 Henry J. Barker, mortgagee 
 
 O verend, Gnrney & Co 
 
 Lloyds & Co 
 
 FrKlerick T. Bush etal., vs. Great Brit- 
 ain. 
 
 Francis Curtis and Samuel E. Peahody 
 rx. Great Britain. 
 
 Edwin Gerard 
 
 Charles Le Quesne et al 
 
 Simpson &, Pitman 
 
 McDf.well & Haliday 
 
 Thames and Marine Insurance Company 
 
 British and Foreign Marine Insurance 
 Comjiany. 
 
 Saunders & Sons 
 
 Mary Hutchinson 
 
 K II. Enstice 
 
 Thomas Leaeh 
 
 Henry Lafone and .John T. Lawrence . 
 
 Peter A. Spearwater 
 
 Henry Lafone and John T. Lawrence .. 
 
 John Loft 
 
 Saunders &. Sons 
 
 do 
 
 Edward Bates 
 
 Walter Easton 
 
 ICdward Pembroke 
 
 Menry Lafone and John T. Lawrence .. 
 
 Miller &. Jlossman 
 
 Ezckiel McLeod, assignee of Thomas 
 Potts. 
 
 Wat kins & Leigh 
 
 Dalgetv, Du Cioz & Co 
 
 William T. Marshall 
 
 Thomas Potts 
 
 .J. Fiiill ct tiL, executors .. 
 
 M.J. Wilson 
 
 Saundtn's A Sons 
 
 (Jeorge W igg 
 
 N. K. Clements 
 
 James McDaniid 
 
 Catharine .1. Johnson 
 
 (ieorge Campbell 
 
 Saumlers tSc Sons 
 
 do 
 
 A. E. Campbell & Co 
 
 Saunders «.t Sons 
 
 do 
 
 Bailey &, Leetham 
 
 Saunders «fe Sons 
 
 .do 
 
 Henry Lafone and John T. Lawrence .. 
 
 Saunders & Sons 
 
 Himry Lafone and John T. Lawrence.. 
 
 Saunders & Sons 
 
 .1. M . Roach 
 
 Saunders &. Sons 
 
 O. K. King, administrator 
 
 Sheldon Lewis 
 
 William H. Fisher 
 
 A. E. Byrne et al 
 
 John McLennan 
 
 S. M. Kyersou et al 
 
 No. 
 
 281 
 
 '281 
 43 
 
 4;i:i 
 
 444 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 244 
 
 :5t)7 
 
 427 
 
 428 
 
 2«1 
 
 277 
 
 im 
 
 2H<» 
 1589 
 
 284 
 
 :{«7 
 
 281 
 281 
 429 
 :i90 
 377 
 ;!89 
 398 
 399 
 
 400 
 401 
 402 
 403 
 
 4r>2 
 407 
 281 
 2()9 
 107 
 108 
 449 
 4.-)3 
 281 
 281 
 290 
 281 
 281 
 [Mi 
 281 
 281 
 389 
 281 
 389 
 281 
 1.'4 
 281 
 288 
 287 
 379 
 315 
 370 
 147 
 

 No. 
 
 
 281 
 
 
 aai 
 
 > . . . . 
 
 4:5 
 
 .. . . . 
 
 4:i:j 
 
 . . . . 
 
 444 
 
 5iit- 
 
 11 
 
 ody 
 
 12 
 
 
 244 
 
 
 •.m 
 
 , . 
 
 •m 
 
 . . . - 
 
 at)7 
 
 
 427 
 
 nco 
 
 428 
 
 
 2^1 
 
 
 
 
 2// 
 
 
 l()l< 
 
 1 > - > 
 
 2H<» 
 
 cc 
 
 •MJ 
 
 
 284 
 
 ee .. 
 
 •Md 
 
 . - - - , 
 
 :in7 
 
 . ■ . . . 
 
 281 
 
 • •• > • 
 
 281 
 
 > > • • • 
 
 429 
 
 
 390 
 
 
 
 377 
 
 CO .. 
 
 ;!8!» 
 
 
 •.i'M 
 
 
 ;5'jy 
 
 
 400 
 
 
 
 401 
 
 .... 
 
 402 
 
 
 4o:i 
 
 
 4r)2 
 
 .... 
 
 407 
 
 .... 
 
 281 
 
 
 2()9 
 
 
 lt)7 
 
 
 108 
 
 
 449 
 
 
 4r):5 
 
 
 
 281 
 
 
 281 
 
 
 
 290 
 
 
 
 281 
 
 
 
 281 
 
 
 ;5N) 
 
 
 281 
 
 
 281 
 
 .. 
 
 389 
 
 
 281 
 
 oe.. 
 
 389 
 
 
 
 281 
 
 
 
 1.-4 
 
 > ■ > • 
 
 281 
 
 > > • • 
 
 288 
 
 
 
 287 
 
 
 
 37!) 
 
 • ■ • • 
 
 315 
 
 • > ■ a 
 
 370 
 
 ■ • • • 
 
 147 
 
 AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 229 
 
 Names of vessels. 
 
 Nelly, aud cargo 
 
 Paciliqiie, owners cargo of 
 
 Paciti<iue, owners of vessel 
 
 Patinos 
 
 Pearl 
 
 Peterhoif, owners of 
 
 Peterhott", part cargo of 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 rcterhoft", illegal imprisonment on board 
 
 of. 
 Peterlioff, part cargo of 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Peterhott', shipper per 
 
 Peterhott, part cargo of 
 
 Do 
 
 Peteriiott", shipper per 
 
 Philo Parsons 
 
 Pride, and cargo 
 
 Prince Leopold 
 
 Sally Magee, part cargo of 
 
 •Siirah Starr 
 
 Scienct!, owners of. 
 
 hir William Peel, cargo aud ownors of .. 
 
 Springbok, cargo of 
 
 Springbok, owners of 
 
 Sinibeam, and cargo 
 
 Swifr, and 
 
 Templar : 
 
 Time, and cargo 
 
 Tristram Shand v 
 
 Tubal Cain....'. 
 
 Virgin, part cargo of 
 
 Volant, part cargo of 
 
 Volant, owners of 
 
 Wanderer, and cargo 
 
 Will o' the Wisp 
 
 York, owners of 
 
 Names of clainnmts. 
 
 iNo. 
 
 Saunders &. Sous 
 
 E. Harvey el al 
 
 Ntizaire Lt-niieux 
 
 Richard 1', iJnck rx. (Jreat Britain.. 
 
 Shand, Higscsi- & Honlt 
 
 Spencer »fc J. Fleming 
 
 .laint's Wi'thcrell 
 
 William Almond 
 
 Alfred Wilson el al 
 
 Wilson, Bowles & Co 
 
 '!» 
 
 281 
 214 
 215 
 13 
 270 
 405 
 40(5 
 407 
 408 
 409 
 410 
 
 Alfred Lafone 411 
 
 Charles S. Osborne r/<(/ 412 
 
 Anna Lonch 413 
 
 Frederick Frost et al 
 
 Thomas P. J^.istin 
 
 James Holgate 
 
 S. .Jarman and C. F. Smith 
 Joiin 1 1. Elsworth 
 
 •1 
 
 414 
 415 
 416 
 417 
 421 
 
 Welch & Price 
 
 Wilson A Armstrong 
 
 Grant & Brodie 
 
 Hine.Mnudella&.Co 
 
 Ernest Elsworth 
 
 John Elsworth 
 
 Walter Eastmi 
 
 Robert Sinclair ctal 
 
 Thomas Edgley 
 
 W. O. Ashley rn. Great Britain 
 
 Saunders Si, Sons 
 
 H. A. McLcod 
 
 Charles (^'oleman 
 
 Cow lam Graveley 
 
 Thomas E. Angel et al 
 
 Edwin Gerard, assignee, iVc 
 
 S. Isaac Camida^ll A: Co 
 
 John Riley, for Thomas May 
 
 Henry Lafone .' John T. Lawrence 
 
 Saunders & So. .4 
 
 Thomas B. Wales et al. (•«.Great Britain . 
 
 Saunders it Sons 
 
 John T. Lawreiu'.e 
 
 Amos Bigland 
 
 George Wigg and Saul Isaac 
 
 E<lwin (!(!rard 
 
 John Amy, trnsti'C, et al 
 
 Saunders &, Sons 
 
 James G. A. Creightcui »fc Co 
 
 James and Richard Martin 
 
 422 
 423 
 424 
 425 
 42(5 
 438 
 439 
 440 
 441 
 
 19 
 281 
 306 
 232 
 292 
 391 
 243 
 316 
 442 
 389 
 281 
 
 18 
 281 
 431 
 199 
 271 
 245 
 388 
 281 
 378 
 434 
 
 D. 
 
 Final award of comrnhmrn. 
 
 Office op the IVIixed Commission on 
 British and American Claims, 
 Under the Treaty Ma\^ 8, 187J, 
 Neicpnrt, li. I., IScpteuiber 25, 1873. 
 
 The nndersigned coinmissiouors appointed muU'r the twdf'th article of 
 the treaty signed at Washington on the eighth day of jNIay, one thou- 
 sand eight hundred aud seventyoue, between the United States of 
 
 
 I' 
 1 
 
RPf^ 
 
 230 
 
 AAIERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 to Si, 
 
 America and Her Britannic ^lajcsty, «lo now make their "final award" 
 of and concerning tixe matteis referred to them by said treaty, as follows, 
 that is to say : 
 
 We award that the Government of the United States of America shall 
 pay to the government of Her Britannic Majesty, within twelve months 
 from the date hereof, the sum of one million nine hundred and twenty- 
 uine thousand eight hundred and nineteen dollars, in gohl, subject to the 
 deduction provided for by article sixteen of the treaty aforesaid, for and 
 in full satisfaction of the several claims on the part of corporations, com- 
 panies, or private individuals, subjects of Uer Britannic Majesty, upon 
 the Government of the United States, arising out of acts committed 
 against the persons or property of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, 
 during the period between the thirteenth day of April, one thousanil 
 eight iiundred and sixty-one, and the ninth day of April, one thousand 
 eight hundred and sixty-five, inclusive ; said sum being the aggregate 
 of tlie several separate awards upon su(;h claims, made in writing, in 
 duplicate, and signed by us or such of us as assented to said separate 
 awards. 
 
 And all other such claims on the part of subjects of Fler Britannic 
 Majesty against the United States whi(!h have been presente<l and pros- 
 ecuted for our award, have been and are hereby disallowed or dismissed, 
 in manner and form as will ai)pear by the several separate awards in 
 writing concerning the same, signed as aforesaid. 
 
 Certain other claims on the part of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty 
 against the United States were also j)r('sonte(l, but were afterward, and 
 before any award was made thereon, witiidrawn by tlie agent of Her 
 Britannic Majesty, as will appear by the recoid of the proceedings of 
 the commission, kept in duplicate, and which will bo delivered to each 
 government herewith. 
 
 And we award that all claims on the i)art of corporations, companies, 
 or private individuals, citizens of the United States, upon tiie govern- 
 ment of Her Britannic Majesty, arising out of acts committed against 
 tiie i>ersons or property of citizens of the United States, between the 
 thirteenth day oi April, one thousand eight hundred and sixty one, and 
 the ninth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five, in- 
 clusive, not being claims growing out of the acts of vessels referred to 
 in the first article of said treaty, have l)een and are hereby disallowed ; 
 separate awards ui)on each of said claims having been made in writing, 
 in duplicate, and signed by us or such of us as assented to such separate 
 awards. 
 
 And we refer to the several separate awards made and signed as 
 aforesaid, as a part of this our final award — it being our intent that the 
 proceedings of this commission shall have the force and ett'ect named 
 and provided in the seventeenth article of said treatv. 
 
 L. COilTI, 
 
 KUSSELL GURXEY, 
 J AS. S. FRAZEU, 
 
 Commissioners. 
 
 B. 
 
 Dissenting oinnion of Mr. Commissioner Frazer in the Calcutta saltpetre 
 
 cases. fSee p. 49, ante.) 
 
 These cases arise out of certain legislative ordinances of the governor- 
 general of India, dated respectively December 21, 18G1, and January 3, 
 
AGENT S REPORT. 
 
 231 
 
 1862. By the first of these ordinances tlie exportation of saltpetre from 
 India was proliibited after that date, except to Lon(h)n and Ijiverpool, 
 in Britisli vessels, under penalty of confiscation : provUled, that tne pro- 
 hibition should not extend to cases where pertnits to expoit \vm\ pre- 
 vioiiHly been granted. 
 
 By thesecoiul ordinance theprovi oof the first, excei>tinp: cases where 
 permits to export had been granted prior to December 21, ISIJI, wasre- 
 scinde<l ; and the article was recpiired to be relanded from vessels in 
 port. Tlu' first ordinance was also so modified as to permit tlu^ article 
 to be exported in British vessels to mui port in the United Kingdom. 
 
 In the case of Bush et al.y the vessel Ikad a permit to export the salt- 
 peter on board l)efore the date of the first ordinamje. She continued to 
 load other goods, placing them upon the saltpetre ; and ln'ing in the 
 port of Calcutta when tl»e secoiui ordinance was proclaimed, she was 
 not permitted to sail as laden. 
 
 In the other cases the saltpetre was laden when the first ordinance 
 took effect, but custom-house permits to ex])ort it had tiof been obtained. 
 In each case the vessels were Ameri<!an and bound for the United States. 
 They were, by the ordinances, re<piired to unlade the saltix'tre ; l)ut by 
 special arrangement with authorities it was allowed to remain on boani, 
 and the vessels waited until the ordinances were rescinded, a period of 
 nearly two months. By this arrangement, it seems that less injury re- 
 sulted than would liave occurred if the saltpetre had been unladen. 
 Damage from (heat Britain is claimed for this «letention. 
 
 The statute of 24 and 25 Vict., ciiap. 07, seems to have authorized 
 the ordinances in question, not speeitic^ally, but by reason of the general 
 power of legislation which it conferred on the authorities in India, 
 
 Though Her Majesty was at that time at jieace with all the world, yet 
 there existed a reasonable apprehension of speedy war with the United 
 States on a(;count of the recent arrest of Messrs. Mason and Slidell on 
 boanl the royal mail-steamer Trent, on the high seas. This is an ele- 
 ment of importance, establishing tlu-.t the ordinances of the governor- 
 general of India were ])roclaimed, not wantonly, but as an exercise of 
 authority with a view, ho}ia fide, to ju'otection and self-defense, when 
 the danger of war seemed probable. 
 
 A diplomatic correspondence concerning these claims ensued between 
 the two governments. The facts were not controverted ; but (^oiuH'din x 
 them, the British government, a<lvised by the law-otticers of the Crown, 
 (lenie«l all liability, while the American (Jovernment very positivefv as- 
 serted it. This alone imparts importance to the (piestion, and suggests 
 that it should receive the most careful c'Misideration. 
 
 1. In the absence of treaty stipulations relating to the subject, it is 
 claimed that the facts constitute a just foundation for a claim. 
 
 2. That the treaty of July 3, 181"), was violated ; and therefore there 
 arises a national liability for damages. 
 
 If the case is within the treaty of ISlo it is, of course, immaterial to 
 determine what should be our award in the absence of treaty stipula- 
 tions. By the convention of August 0, 1827, that of 1815 was contin- 
 ued indefinitely, terminable on one year's notice, which was never given. 
 Tliis was before the statute 24 aud 25 Vict., though I do not deem the 
 fact important. 
 
 If by treaty the British government contracted not to do that wliich 
 before it might lawfully and without liability have done, it cannot after- 
 ward break its contract without a just liability to answer for the conse- 
 quences, f 
 
 ft" -K' 
 
 ii 
 
 tl 
 
 I'M 
 
 ■. ■-■•»! 
 
 "I 
 
 1 -il^ 
 
 
 
'"ir^i"" 
 
 f 
 
 II' n 
 
 232 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 I<: ^ 
 
 ill 
 
 ■ .1 
 
 i: 
 
 Was there, then, a contract by treaty, by the terms of which Great 
 Britain engnpnl not to «h) the thinj;s Cduiphnnod of? 
 
 By the tliinl article of the treaty of 1815, His Britannic Majesty agreed 
 that citizens of the United States niijiiht "freel.v carry on trade 
 between Cahjutta, Madras, Bombay, and Prince of Wales Island, and 
 the tJnited States, in all articles ol which the importation and exporta- 
 tion to and from the said territorieH shall not be entirely i>roliibited." 
 The "said territories" can only mean Calcntta, Madras, Bombay, and 
 Prince of Wales Island ; for those only were the territories ])reviously 
 mentioned. To carry j(oods from Liverpool, or elsewhere in the United 
 Kingdom, to Calcutta for sale, would, it can hardly be questioned, be 
 au importation to " said territories " in the sense of the treaty ; so, then, 
 as long as the importation of a given article from Liverpool to Calcutta 
 was not prohibited, it might also be imported from New York by citizens 
 of the United States. In short, American merchants, by that article of 
 the treaty, acquired the liberty to compete with British merchants in 
 supplying the markets of" said territories^'^ This is the natural import 
 of the language; and if these claims arose out of similar interference 
 with American importations to Calcutta, say the i)rohibition to unlade an 
 American cargo under a like ordinance, i)roclaimed after the arrival of 
 the vessel at Calcutta, I can scarcely conceive that a demand for redress 
 wouhl be denie<l bj' Her Majesty's government. I think that in such a 
 case the language of the treaty would be cleemed too plain to admit of 
 construc/tion. And I cannot but think that as to importations to '-''f^nkl 
 territories," that language expresses the exact intention of the high 
 contracting parties. 
 
 As to erportations, it is not, I think, fairly susceptible of controversy 
 that the literal import of the language used conce<les to American citi- 
 zens rights exactly coextensive with those which relate to importations. 
 If not to prohibit the carrying of an article from Liverpool to the market 
 of Calcutta is to allow that article to be imported to Calcutta, in the 
 sense of the treaty ; though it seems to me plain that not to i)rohibit 
 the carrying of saltpetre /VoMt Calcutta to Liverpool is to allow saltpetre 
 to be exported/VoMi Calcutta. In other words, by the plainest language 
 that could iu)sisibly have been en)ployed, the quoted words of the treaty 
 concede to the United Slates a right to export and import from or to 
 "those territories" alike, unless either as to specified articles shall be 
 prohibited entirely, which is not done if exports be allowed /row "those 
 territories," or if imports be allowed to "those territories." 
 
 The question remains, vvas the taking of saltpetre from Calcutta to 
 Liverpool an exportation of that article from Calcutta in the sense of 
 the treaty ? 
 
 It is admitted in the intelligent argument of Her Majesty's counsel 
 that in some sense the carriage of an article from Calcutta, " whether to 
 a port in the United Kingdom or to a foreign port, is an exportation,''' 
 nor can this be questioned philologically. The word itself includes the 
 former as well as the latter, whether reference be had to its strict sense 
 or its popular use. For ])roof of this use, indeed, it is only necessary to 
 refer to the very ordinances complained of in these cases, in both of 
 which the word is several times used in that very sense, aiul certainly 
 without improi)riety. It is also used by Earl Russell in the same sense, 
 in his (correspondence with Mr. Adams concerning these claims. It is 
 also used in the statute laws of both countries, as well to indi(;ate the 
 carrying of goods from distant colonies or possessions as from coun- 
 tries wholly foreign. 
 
F 
 
 AGENT .S KEPORT. 
 
 233 
 
 So mu»!li for the mere words of the tre.ity. Lookinjj only nt the laii- 
 fjiiage (iiioted, the eonehision woiihl seem to be that Crreut liritaiii en- 
 gaged by the treaty to permit citizens of tiie United States to export 
 from Cahmttta to the United States such artieh's as she slioidd permit 
 to be exporttid to the United Kingdom or any other phice ; /. c, the ex- 
 portation of \vhi<!h shouhl not be ^'' entirely prohibit(Ml." IJnt tlie words 
 of a treaty must be construed witli reference to tlieir subject-matter, so 
 as to forward the intent of the high contractin^j parties, and not de- 
 feat it, and so as to avoi«l absurd results. 
 
 Now, the intent of the third article of the treaty of 1815 undoubtedly 
 was to give to the United States the lil)erty of direct trade with the 
 places mentioned in the East Indies; so that Americans might purchase 
 and sell there, and with their own ships transport goods to and from 
 their own country, from and to those phutes. The nns(!hief sought to be 
 remedied was that the United States GovernnuMit was previously obliged 
 to supplj' herself with the products of those places at second haml in 
 the markets of Great Britain, and could oidy exchange her products with 
 them through the same indirect channel. 
 
 Now, it must be seen at once that if the British government reserved 
 to itself the right asserted, (continuing herself to trade there,) then the 
 concession which seemed to be made was a mere delusion and snare to 
 Ameri(;an merchants, giving no right which Great Britain might not 
 withdraw at any moment with advantage to her own merchants at home. 
 In short, she could at will resume the entire monopoly of the trade with 
 her East Indian posessions; for it must be borne in mind that the 
 language under consideration, by virtue of whic^h it is contended that 
 the ordinances in question can be justified, applies (juite as well to all 
 other commodities as to salti)etre, and to imports as well as to exports. 
 \^ treaty stii)ulation with such a meaning would be worse than an utter 
 uivjlity. 
 
 There are some other clauses found in this article of the treaty which 
 need to be considered. There is the clause usual in commercial treaties, 
 which makes citizens of the United States tradingin those places '^subje(!t 
 in all respects to the laws and regulations of the Britsh government from 
 time to time established." Of this it is, perhajKs, suliicient to say, that it 
 cannot be supposed that such a clause is a reservation ot authority to pro- 
 hibit the very trade which it was the leading purpose of the article to 
 allow. In the language of Earl liussell concerning the same clause, in 
 the first article of the treaty, (letter to Lord Lyons of December 17, 18(12,) 
 "it does not mean that the principal engagement itself may be nullified, 
 or may be rendered illusory either in whole or in ])art * # * 
 but merely that obedience is to be rendered by foreign traders * * 
 to all the laws and statutes euacted * * for tlie ordinary and le- 
 gitimate purposes of internal government and administration. * * 
 I have to observe (he adds) that it is a well-known maxim that treaties 
 are to be interpreted in good faitli, and in such a manner that they may 
 have their effect and not be rendered vague or illusory." And Mr. Sew- 
 ard's reply (letter to Lord Lyons of January 9, 1803) contains a virtual 
 admission of the correctness of the princii)le so well stated by Earl 
 liussell. 
 
 It may be added that it is impossible to perceive the force of the ar- 
 gument that a year's notice should be given to terminate the treaty, 
 if it was provided that it could be effectually nullified by one of the 
 parties, at will, by an act of legislation. 
 
 But there remains a consideration of much greater weight, as I think. 
 
 
 1! 
 
 T^-i 
 
234 
 
 AMERICAN-nRITISII CLAIMS COMMISSIOX. 
 
 than those wliicJi have bcon iilhidod to iibovc. Solt'-piosprvation and 
 self-ch'Tciise art; nacivd iij,'lits of nations as well as of individuals; and 
 nothinj; in a treaty should hv taken to have impaired the riy:ht of a na- 
 tion to make jtrndent preparations for them hy hnshiindinj; its means of 
 war, >vhen that event seems prol)al)Ie, unless the terms of the stipulation 
 will admit of no other eonstruetion. 
 
 TiM're is a i)rovision in the article under consideration which shows 
 clearly that the exifjency ()f possible war was distin(;tly in mind wh»Mi 
 tlu' treaty was concluded. Indeed, such were the events then existiii^ 
 in the history of both counties that it would have been remarkable if it 
 bad not been. The provision is in those words : 
 
 rrovidcd only that it sliall not he lawful for tlicin, (citi/i'iiH of the United States,) 
 in any tinu' of war hctwcrn the HritJHh <j;ovcrnint'nt and any state or ]»ower wliatevcr, 
 to ex)Mirt from tlie said territories, witliout the special permission of the British gov- 
 ernment, any military storeiH <»r naval stores, or rice. 
 
 This exception to the fjt'neral liberty to trade conceded before, is free 
 from all ambiouity. That it covers only the (lase of actual war, 
 shows most clearly that it was not deemed important, and was not 
 intended to make any reservation for the case of war merely iipi)re- 
 liended. The one thin*-' beinj'- expressed, all else is excluded. E.rpressio 
 unius est cxclusio alteviun. This maxim of interpretation is sensible and 
 sound, and I think never was more a|)plicable in any case than here. 
 
 If 1 have correctly int<'rpreted the treaty, then it is of no consetpience 
 whatever that the ordinances applied to all nations alike. A s|)ecilic 
 enf^iifiement delinitein its terms can be; I'ullilled only by the nertbrmance 
 of it in all its substantial i)arts. It is not to la; contbunded with an 
 engaj;ement to extend only the privileges which shall be allowed to 
 other powers or to the most favored nation. 
 
 These considerations seem to me to establish very clearly the valid- 
 ity of these claims, and 1 am of opinion that damages should be awarded 
 accord ingij-. 
 
 r. 
 
 Mr. Comniimoner Frazer\s (liNxcntinfiopiivon in the cane of ITenry Hender- 
 son vs. United IStatea. No, 410. 8ee p. -ii), ante. 
 
 Henderson, in whose behalf Great Britain makes this claim, is a Brit- 
 ish subject by birth, and has taken no steps toward becomuig natural- 
 ized in this or any other country. lie became domiciled near Port 
 Hudson, in the parish of West Feliciana, in 1850, employed in cultivating 
 and dealing in cotton, and has ever since resided there. There is no 
 room to doubt that it was his voluntary and pernmnent domicile. It is 
 not even alleged that he maintained a personal neutrality during any 
 period of the rebellion, and there is no [)roof whatever of that fact. In 
 June, 1803, he owned in the neighborhood of 112 bales of cotton. After 
 twenty-seven day.s of effort by continuous fighting. General Banks, com- 
 manding the United States forces investing the fortified town of Port 
 Hudson, held by the rebels, found himself unable to carry the works by 
 assault, and thereupon commenced a regular siege of the place. Cotton 
 found in the neighborhood, including Henderson's, was, without discrim- 
 ination, seized by the United States forces, and used almost exclusively 
 in the construction of fortifications, a purpose to which cotton in bales 
 
AGENT S REPORT. 
 
 235 
 
 is known to be well adjiptod in tlie eniorficncics of u siege. The olllicor 
 who took Henderson's cotton j;iive papers as follows: 
 
 I{c(fiv('(l, Hicnvt'iMio itlaiifiifKiii, West liOiiiiHianii, from tint |)liUitiitioii of Jed. 0. 
 Smitli, lU'lyoiii.' (")l) biilt's olcDtloii, l»y order ot'L'ol. S. U. Ilnlaliiril : Mfi/.cd liy ordnr. 
 
 T. K. I't'i,i.i:ij, 
 C'apt. Sevi'iitu-Jl/th X. Y. lulu., A. .1. Q. M. 
 Jink 10, 1803. 
 
 .Tixi. 1'-', lH(a 
 I liiivc^ takt'ii, by ord<ir of Col. S. H. Iloliibird. for tlio Uiiitcd Statfs (»ovnniiiu>iit, 
 \'A:\ balt'H of cotton from tlirCarniiiiii idantatioii, Wost hoiii.siuna. 
 
 (Sijjiifd as above.) 
 
 The fortilications and works of the l)esi(^}jers were extensive, beinjij 
 equal to a continous line of over seven miles. After the fall of I'ort 
 Hudson, the cotton was jijaMiered up. cleaned, and sold, and the proceeds 
 applieil to the use of the trooj)s of the Unite<l J)tates. 
 
 Under these facts the majority of the commission determine that Hen- 
 derson has a valid claim against the United States for the vahu^ of his 
 cotton, and an award is made in favor of (Jreat Britain accordinj^ly. 
 
 I cannot Join in this award, and the principles of j)ul)lic law involved 
 ill it and contravened by it, seem to me so very important and so well 
 sett'ed, that I feel it my duty respe(!tfully to state the reasons which 
 coiitiol my action now and may control it in other cases. 
 
 1. That aforei<;iierdoinicile(l in the United States, voluntarily remain- 
 ing? in a hostile part of it, in rebellion ajjainst it, that i)ait reco^^nized 
 by the country of his orioin as a belligerent, thus (ihoosinj; to trust him- 
 self to its protection, thus being in law an enemy of the United States, 
 without even pretending that he was in/act neutral, may be recognized 
 as entitled to maintain a claim against it for projx'rty appropriated by 
 its invading armies, when no citizen of the United States could under 
 like circumstaiK^es claim such consideration, is a proposition to which I 
 iiiust enter an earnest and emphatic dissent. If it lias any support iii 
 equity. Justice, or the public law, then I am greatly in error. 
 
 2. The cotton was the i)roperty of an enemy of the United States, so 
 recognized by every writer uiion international law, and so held by all 
 tribunals, both American and British as well as continental, in every 
 reported case involving the question. The mixed commission, consti- 
 tuted under the convention of JSoG, between the two countries, so held in 
 Laurent's case. Indeed, it went further, and held that an unnaturalized 
 Englishman voluntarily domiciled in a country at war with the United 
 States was not even to be regarded as a Britis'i subject ; thus going 
 a little too far, as I think. 
 
 The property of Henderson was as liable to capture as the proi)erty 
 of Jeft'. Davis himself, or any rebel in arms. I believe this is not (pies- 
 tioiied. That the proi)erty itself was a i)roper subject of capture on land 
 under the modern rules by which civilized nations goveru themselves 
 in war, seems to me to be quite as clear. 
 
 The legislation and the known practice of the rebel Minorities made 
 it so. They made cotton the basis of their public creaa by a policy 
 which aimed to deal largely in it on government account, to purchase 
 it even before it wa* grown, and hypothecate it as security for the pay- 
 ment of loans, with the proceeds of which they did, to a large extent, 
 supply themselves with arms and munitions of war, and with a fleet of 
 armed vessels to infest the ocean and destroy American commerce. 
 They committed it to the flames, whether owned by friend or foe, rather 
 than permit it to reach the markets of the world otherwise than through 
 their own ports; thus endeavoring by warlike operations to secure to 
 
 u 
 
 '•'■■'■I 
 
 -ii 
 
 

 23G 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 i'|f 
 
 1'' 
 
 m 
 
 tliemselvps a monopoly in supplyinj; the foroign donmnd, tlmt tlioy 
 ini^lit thereby constrain nations ahroiul to aid them in their strnyfjie. 
 In short, cotton was a special and t'ormi(hil)le fonmhition of the rebel 
 military power. It was more important than arms or ships of war, fur 
 it snpplied these and all else beside. It was moie potent than gold, 
 for it not only comiiumded gold, but it lar}i;e!y enlisted in behalf of the 
 rebels the interests of foreij^ners whose inannfacturin}? Industry wa.s 
 in a measure paralyzed because this staple was needed to keep it in 
 motion. The nei^essities and purposes of war, therefore, recpiired its cap- 
 ture at every opportunity more imperatively than the capture of muni- 
 tions and imidements of war; indeed, that ne(!essity was <piite as press- 
 ing; and certainly as humane as the killing' of men in battle; for it was 
 no less eiticient as a means of ac(romplishin}v the subjugation of the 
 rebel armies, and reestablishing the national authority. It is to me 
 astonishing if there is a ditteren<re of opinion upon this subject. 
 
 The Supreme Court of the United States, recognizing to the fullest 
 extent all the limitations which the practice of nations has lately en- 
 gralted upon the right of capture upon land, so held in the case of ,i 
 loyal American widow. (Seethe caseof Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Black.) 
 This is high authority, especially when it is remembered that that au- 
 gust tribunal has certaiidy exhibited no tendency whatever to give 
 undue license to military authority or warlike operations. Con)plaint, 
 if any, has been altogether in the other direction. But I would be 
 quite content, in the absence of any authority, to trust the question 
 with the common sense of all civilized nations so long as war in any form 
 shall be recognized as a lawful method of deciding differences. If the 
 capture was rightful by the laws of war, it would l)e a novelty in inter- 
 national law that its exercise involves an obligation to make compensa- 
 tiou. 
 
 3. But another point remains, which in my judgement is p' utely 
 conclusive agaisnt any award on account of this claim, if th s of 
 
 international law should control the determination of the question. Hen- 
 derson was voluntarily and permanently domiciled in one of the rebel- 
 lious States, the territory held by the so-called Confederate States recog- 
 nized by Great Britain as a belligerent. By that act of recognition all 
 British subjects were bound. If they chose to remain in that part of 
 the world, they voluutaiily took the chances of war and intrusted their 
 interests to the protection of that organization. They must look to 
 it for protection from the results of war; and now that it has, by the 
 fortunes of war, been extermimited, the country of their origin has no 
 right (save possibly in exceptionally flagrant cases) to intervene in their 
 belmlf as against the United States for indemnification. This I think 
 is as clearly established as a rule of international law as anything can be. 
 It was so held in Laurent's case, supra. It was so declared by the Amer- 
 ican Secretary of State in reference to the bombardment of Greytowu. 
 and was then assented to by the English government under the advice 
 of the law-officers of the Crown. The Attorney-General on that occasion 
 declared in I'arliament that every jurist odmitted it. He said "the prin- 
 ciple which governed such cases was that the citizens of foreign states 
 who resided within the arena of war had no right to demand compensa- 
 tion from either of the belligerents." (See Wheat. Int. Law, 173 — note 
 by Lawrence.) This rule is so much in the interest of the peace of na- 
 tions that it should be steadfastly maintained. A right to interfere is so 
 intimatelj' associated with the duty of doing so, that any relaxation of 
 this i)rinciple would but multiply occasions of war and afford too many 
 opportunities for that armed intervention in the quanels of others which 
 is sometimes sought, in vain, by ambitious rulers. 
 
AGEN'rS REPORT. 
 
 237 
 
 o. 
 
 Opinion of Mr, CommiHsioner Frnzcr in uhuniloneil an<f voptured propcriy 
 cuHCH, No. lilii), undotherH. {Sec p. 41>, ante.) 
 
 TliP cjipture or (U'stiiictioii of property on land helonjiin}; to individnul 
 ftiK'iiiies isjiistitled by tlit' modern law of nations, if {Uviv. be military 
 reasons for it ; in tlie abscniie of •••ood niilitaiy reasons such (laptures are 
 jr«'iierally witiiout tiie support of tiie puldie. law. When su(;h reasons do 
 exist, sueh capture or destruction is, in the nature of things, (piite as 
 proper as the capture or destruction of smth property on the high seas. 
 
 The latter is maintained because nn enemy's commerce and navigation 
 are "the sinews of his naval power," to take or destroy which is, there- 
 fore, a legitimate act of war. (Wheat. Int. Law; Lawren(!e, (JlMJ.) 
 
 "The si tews" ot liisw* ////«»•»/ i»ower on land must, in view of the natural 
 law, be equally the subject of capture or destriu;tion by an invading 
 army. Cotten was held to be such by the Supreme Court, in the case 
 of ."\irs. Alexj nder's cotton, {2 Wall., KH.) The reasoning of the opij'ion 
 of the Chiel Justice in that case is, 1 think, unanswerable. 
 
 The war of iie American rebellion was a <'ivil war — an immense one, 
 too, aad the G ivernmi'iit had all the rights of war whi<!h it would have 
 lia(l it its enemy had l)een an iiulependent nati()n. Even the rel)»'l orga- 
 nization was re« ognized l>y Her Majesty's gov^'rnment as a belligerent, 
 (. ('., having the rights of war; and (rertainlv that governnuMit is ther«'by 
 estopi»ed fiom denying, an«l, indeed, never has denie«l, that belligerent 
 rights also belonged to the Government of the United States. Every 
 act of war recognized as lawfid l)y the publico law between independent 
 states at war was, theietbre, lawful on the juirtof the United States, and 
 involved no cause for reclamation on thepaii of neutrals. On this ground 
 only, as a lawlul belligeient act, could a blockade be maintaine<l. The 
 subject is discussed very fully by the Supreme Court in the IMi/e Cas«'s, 
 1! iSlack ; and 1 think the reasoning of that court is conclusive. 
 
 Neutral's prtijx'rty in the eiu'my's territoiy stands e.\a<!tly on the same 
 footing as any other property Ibund there. Indeeil, a neutral domii'iled 
 there is an enemy in view of the public law. He may be compelled to 
 serve. the enemy as a soldier even, and his property must contribute 
 to the support of the enemy's hostile operations without reference to 
 bis national character. 1 think that all authorities, JJiitish, conti- 
 nental, and American, are in accord ujion the luoposition that the bellig- 
 erent right of capture of movable property on land is in no respect 
 atfected l>y the nationality of its owner. 
 
 Whatever is lawfully done in the exercise of belligerent rights can- 
 not involve any liability contemplated by the treaty; it cannot [tossibly 
 be a tort. 
 
 The belligerent right of capture must not be confounded with the right 
 of eminent domain, which is a civil right exercised in virtcu' of sover- 
 ereignty. The two are wholly distinct and rest upoij different grounds. 
 
 Grant's case, (C. CIs., 1803,) cited by Her Uritannic ]Majest.\'s counsel, 
 was not a destruction of enemy's property; it was not in the enemy's 
 lines, nor in a seceding State. It was a destruction of prt)perty iu 
 Arizo, within actual possession of the United States, to prevent its fal- 
 ling into the enemy's hands, and by the (Jonstitutiou of the United 
 States compeusatiou for it was secured, and this only did the court de- 
 cide. 
 
 But are we to be told that the Governnieut of the United States is 
 compelled by its Constitution to pay its rebellious citizens for their 
 
 
 tip 
 
f 
 
 238 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 ';■'* 
 
 property destroyed as a lawful, hell i(/c rent act ? Has its Constitution 
 thus tied its hands as against a rebellion ? JMi{>ht the rebels, without 
 liability, exercise all recognized belligerent rights against it, including 
 the capture of the ))roperty of British subjects found in the loyal States, 
 and yet ic do the like only subject to the (luty of making compensation ? 
 
 From all this absurdity theie is no es('ape if the belligerent right of 
 capture and destruction shall be conlbunde«l with the sovereign right 
 of eminent domain. And indeed captures on the high seas must then 
 go into the same general category. 
 
 In Hiu', a constitutional provision — the condition of compensation for 
 property taken for i)ublic use — intended only to restrain civil adminis- 
 tration, would be held to so trimmel belligerent rights in time of civil 
 war that ett'e(;tive hostilities against rebels might sometimes be practi- 
 cally impossible. 
 
 Now, Congress saw that the full exercise of the belligerent right of 
 capture on lund was, as to cotton esiiecially, of the greatest military 
 importance, and that such capture would, therefore, be extensive, and 
 that it would fall alike on the loyal and the disloyal citizen, and also 
 upon foreign residtMits in the South who had not actually violated any 
 duty. It was a generous policy to mitigate calamities which a war thus 
 lawfully conducted would nevertheless impose upon i)ersous guilty of 
 no actual wrong. If the capture was a lawful act of war, to restore a 
 portion ot the procee<ls would bean act of grace and generosity constitut- 
 ing no foundation for a claim for nu)re ; and if a paiticular nu»Je was at 
 the sanu' tiuu^. provided, whereby this partial restitution might be sought, 
 that nu)de only could be resorted to. The right generously given and 
 the mode of seeking it must go together. 
 
 The act concerning cai>tiired and abandoned property, allowing loyal 
 persons to recover in the Court of Claims, was just tliis act of grace. 
 (Anderson's case, Wall., 50.) 
 
 My conclusions are : 
 
 1. Capture of cotton of British owners within the rebel territory was 
 not wiongful by interiuitional law. 
 
 2. It was not wrongful under the jvct of Congress. 
 
 3. It was a belligerent right, and not the civil and sovereign right of 
 eminent donuun. 
 
 4. Without the act of Congress no compensation was due. 
 
 5. Oidy such liability as the act of Congress imposes exists, and it 
 must be sought in the mode prescribed by the act. 
 
 Again, it is a principle of international law established by the i)rac- 
 tice of ail civilized states, and sanctioned by every consideration of ex- 
 pediency and justice, that where a nation has provideiJ an ade(p)ate 
 municipal remedy by judicial pi'oceedings for wrongs done by it to tbi- 
 eigners dumiciled within its jurisdiction, as well as to its own subjects, 
 no intei national rechunaticm can be nuide, at least until this municipal 
 remedy has been exhausted. 
 
 Upon this princi[>le, also, thi;< commission shouhl make no award in 
 this class of cases. The Cimrt of Claims was open to these claimants, 
 with jurisdiction to give them reasimable con»i>ensation for (;aptui«'s of 
 cotton. Tiiere citizens of the United States must go for relief within 
 the tinu^ limited by act of Congress; and 1 cannot assent to the propo- 
 sition that domiciled aliens have a better claim than citizens. 
 
 1 would not be understood to hold that the right of capture of enemy's 
 property ou land, as recoguizetl in re<!eut tinu's, is t'ls broad as it is at 
 sea. The military reason for it must be more palpable and immediate. 
 There is a remote possibility that to tako the lives of uou-combatauts— 
 
agent's report. 
 
 239 
 
 onstitutioii 
 Is, without 
 :, iiu'liuliug 
 >,yal States, 
 pensiitioii ? 
 lit .vij;lit of 
 reign ii<;iit 
 must thtMi 
 
 risation for 
 il adniinis- 
 mo of civil 
 5 be practi- 
 
 nt ri<»:lit of 
 it military 
 I'lisivc, and 
 II, ami also 
 ioiaiL'd any 
 a war tiiiis 
 IS S'l'lty "t" 
 o restore a 
 y constitiit- 
 lo^'e was at 
 be 80 11 gilt, 
 given aiul 
 
 >wing loyal 
 t of grace. 
 
 ■ritory was 
 gn right of 
 
 ista, and it 
 
 r the i)rac- 
 tion of ex- 
 1 adequate 
 ►y it to tor- 
 n subjects, 
 municipal 
 
 o award in 
 claimants, 
 !aptiii'es of 
 lief within 
 the propo- 
 
 of enemy's 
 
 as it is at 
 
 Immediate. 
 
 ibatauts— 
 
 enemies — may wealven the enemy, for these might be forced into the 
 armies of the enemy; so, too, as to an indiscriminate capture or de- 
 struction of private i)roperty. l>iit all this is condemne<' ' y the modern 
 law, and 1 would shudder to countenance a revival of practices so hor- 
 rible. 
 
 I admit, too, that there may be difficulty in defining the j)re(!ise limits 
 of the right of capture on land. It cannot be doubted that it 'iiay be 
 as broad ami general as the practice oi (iie enemy in that regard: for 
 retaliation is fully justified by institutional writers, and by the [)ractice 
 of all nations. 
 
 So 1 sui»pose it would not be questioned that arms, munitions of war- 
 commissary and (piartermaster's supplies, intended for sale to the ene- 
 my, might be captured or destroyed. So, too, private manufactories 
 intended to furnish arms to be sold to the enemy, &c., «S:c. This enu- 
 meration might be extended. 
 
 I feel safe in asserting that no nation in Christendom has practically 
 abamloned the right to capture and destroy in all such cases. It is a 
 direct blow at the military jiower of the enemy. 
 
 So if an enemy banker lias engaged to supply the enemy government 
 with money, may not the cash in his vaults for that puri)ose be cap- 
 tin ed if 
 
 This, too, would be •» direct blow <!t the sinews of his military power, 
 (juite as effective and not less humane th in taking of life in battle. 
 
 .1 ' .1 
 
 H. 
 
 Opinion of Mr. Commissioner Frazer in the case of John IT. Ilanna, vs. The 
 United States, -^'o. 2. {See p. 58, ante.) 
 
 This is a claim for the destruction of 810 bales of cotton belonging to 
 the claimant by rebels in arms against the United States. The prop- 
 erty was ilestroyed in Louisiana and .Mississippi in 1802 by tiie (umfed- 
 erate forces witli the concurrence of tiie rebel authorities of Louisiana, 
 one of the Confederate States so called. Her Britannic Majesty had 
 recognized the so-calle<l Confederate States as a belligerent and the con- 
 test of arms then prevailing as a public war. Aft»*r siuih recognition 
 by the sovereign, the subject of such sovereign cannot, in his character 
 as such suliject, aver that the fact was not so. The act of his govern- 
 ment in that regard is conclusive ujion him. 
 
 Aside from this rec(>gnition by Her Majesty, it is public history of 
 which this commission will take notice without averment or proof, that 
 the confederate forces were engaged at the time mi a formidal)le rebel- 
 lion against the government of the United StiWi's. It may not be im- 
 portant to the question in hand, therefore, thai Her Majesty had taken 
 tlie action already stated. 
 
 It should be further observed that the particular "State of Louisiana" 
 which coiicuried and participated in the destruction of the claimant's 
 property was a rebel (u-ganization, existing and acting a.s much in hos- 
 tility to the (iovernment of the Unite*! States as was the Confederate 
 States, so-called. It was in form and fact a creature unknown to the 
 Constitution of the United States, and acting in hostility to it. It was 
 an instrumentality i>f the rebellion. Its agency, therefore, in the spolia- 
 tion of this cotton cau!iot be likened to the act of a State of the Arueri- 
 
 B^* 
 
my 
 
 240 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 
 caii Union claiming to exist nnder the Constitution ; and any argument 
 tending to show that under international law the national government 
 is liable to answer for wrongs committed by such a state upon the sub- 
 jects of a foreign power, can have no application to the matter now un- 
 der consideration. The question presentea is simply whether the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States is liable to answer to a neutral for the 
 acts of those in rebellion against it under thecinuimstances stated, who 
 never succeeded in estMblisiiing a government. It is not deemed necessary 
 in this case to inquire whether the clainuint, having a commercial dom- 
 icile in Louisiana at the time, is to be deemed a British "subject of Her 
 Britannic Majesty" in tiie sense of Article XII of tlie treaty which cre- 
 ates this commission. Tliat question is argued by counsel, but it is 
 thought better to meet the question above stated for tlje reason that 
 the case '..ill theieby be determined more distinctly upon its merits. 
 
 The statement of the question would seem to rentier it uunecesary 
 to discuss it. It is nol ihe case of a government established de facto, 
 displacing the government dc jure. But it is the case merely of an 
 unsuccessful effort in that direction, which, for the time being, inter- 
 rupted the course of lawful government without the fault of the hitter. 
 
 Its acts were lawless and (aiminal, and could remit in no liabilty on 
 tlie part of the Government of the United States. 
 
 I. 
 
 Mr. Commissioner Frazer\H disscHtinf/ opinion-in the c^ses of }frs. Sherman, 
 No. 351), and Mrs. Brain, Xo. 4-f7. {See p. 02, ante.) 
 
 This is an international court, and the parties litigant before it are 
 nations, not indiridiials. 
 
 But the treaty limits the jurisdiction of this tribunal. Not all mat- 
 ters of (litference between the two governnu'iits have been submitt»'d to 
 the award of this commission, but only certain "claims on the part of 
 their respective cIti/AMis or subjtcts, against the other government. The 
 corresiioiiden„e which led to the treaty clearly shows that this means 
 ^'■claims o/ " the citizens or subjects of either government, against the 
 othei' government. (Sir Edwaid TUornton to Secretary Fish, February 
 1, 1871, and Mi'. Fish's reply of February 3, 1871. See Protocol I.) 
 
 There must, then, be an individual who has a claim, and a British or 
 American natlona'lty, else we (;annot takejnrisdiiitlon. 
 
 When the party whose person or i)r()i)erty has suffered injury is dead, 
 how are we to ascertain who then has such claim I The liiternational 
 law is silent, giving no answer to this (luestion. It is a. matter regula- 
 ted by municipal law, and the law of the domicile of the deceased must 
 be reteried to to as(!ertaiii who takes the rights which he had while In 
 life; that Is to say, to ascertain who Is the imlividual " citizen or subjeiit" 
 in who^e behalf a claim exists after the death of th(> original (ilaiinant. 
 If l>y the municipal law of the domicile of the deceased nobody is entitled, 
 then by this treaty we cannot make an allowance; for we (!au only do 
 that where there is an indiridiial, British or American, who has a claim. 
 We have no authority to create a claimant. The treaty might have pro- 
 vided for such cases, but It did not. It might have provided tiuit pro- 
 per damages sliould be awarded against our government in favor of the 
 other, for the wrong to the nation, without reference to any question of 
 the right of an individual to sucb damages, leaving the goverumeut iu 
 
w 
 
 ALJKMS IJKI'OKT. 
 
 241 
 
 argument 
 vernmeut 
 1 the siib- 
 V now un- 
 
 tlie Gov- 
 il for the 
 51 ted, who 
 neeessiiry 
 •eial doiii- 
 'ct of Her 
 vliieh cn^- 
 
 but it is 
 iisoii that 
 nerits. 
 iinecesiiry 
 I (le facto, 
 ely of ill) 
 ng, inter- 
 the hitter, 
 iiibilty on 
 
 Sherman, 
 
 'ore it are 
 
 all niat- 
 iinittt'd to 
 ', part of 
 [Mit. Tiie 
 lis means 
 ainst the 
 February 
 .)! I.) 
 iritish or 
 
 V is dead, 
 rnational 
 M' reyiihi- 
 ise(l MUi.st 
 1 while ill 
 r subject" 
 (;lainiant. 
 ientitl«'il, 
 only do 
 s il claim, 
 have i»'o- 
 that pro- 
 'or of the 
 lestioLi of 
 umeut iu 
 
 whose favor the award should be made to determine, as it mi>«ht see tU, 
 wiiat individual if any should be benefited thereby. 
 
 The treaty of the United States with New Granada, and that with 
 Mexico, referred to in the argument, were of this character. 
 
 Where the personal injury was to one domiciled either in the United 
 States or Great Britain and now dead, there can be no citizen or subject 
 entitled to make claim ; because, by the laws of both countries, the right 
 to damages is extinguished by the death of the person injured. 
 
 'if 
 
 K. 
 
 Opinion of Mr. Conimhuioner Frazcr in the ctixe of John C. liahminy. No. 
 
 7. {See p. m, ante.) 
 
 Conceding that in thl:; case there must be an award of damages, yet 
 1 do not agree that it should be large. 
 
 When the American rebellion began he was domiciled at ^»assau, and 
 so continued untilJune 13, 18G1, when he removed to New York, having 
 made his arrangements for that purpose the previous year, (his deposi- 
 tion, p. 37.) 
 
 The rebellion was not h.atched in a corner. The firitig upon Fort 
 Sumter was not a surprise. For many weeks prior thereto, it was 
 known all over America and Europe that elaborate preparations were 
 being made for the attack. Jt was virtually under siege for weeks 
 before a gun was lired, its supplies cut off, and fortifications for attack 
 being built. This is public history. Jt is not pretended that this was 
 not known in Nassau. Arms of all kinds were sought and in demand 
 in the South. This claimant was at that time willing to supply that de 
 mand, and for the sake of profit to put in Wilminj^ton two cannon 
 which he owned, to be used to destroy the Government whose liospi- 
 tality he intended in a few weeks to accept. On" <;♦' his explanations of 
 this is that, when so intending in Ainil, lS(;i did not know that 
 
 tiring upon Sumter had really yet begun ! Tlii.^ is his st;iten:ent to 
 Consul Archibald, (memorial, p. 17,) iu September, lS(il. It is itossibh* 
 that the consul did not give his statement correctly, liiii n December. 
 1872, he plainly means to be understood that at tliat time (A; lil, 1S<»1 1 
 he "got news " for the first time that there was " li1;cly to be war.'''' and 
 therefore he did not send the guns to Wilmington! (his dei)osition, p. 
 48.) It overtaxes credulity to be expectetl to believe that iin intellige;n 
 merchant at Nassau did not learn, long before April, that there as 
 "likely to be a war." 
 
 On September 2, 18(51, the Government, being infornuMl merely that 
 he had attempted to have the guns shipped from Nassau to Wilmington. 
 :uh1, 80 far as we know, not learning that he was at the time a resident 
 of Nassau, and that it was probably before there was actual war, ha>i 
 him arrested. Learning the facts as stated by the consul, he was 
 promptly released after sixteen days' detention. 
 
 The Government had learned eimugh to have made it almost criminal 
 not to be afterwards suspicious of Itahming. He had been willing to 
 supply the rebels with arms. He was trading ostensibly with Nassau, 
 notoriously a mere way-station for goods intended for tlie nibels. He 
 had a tra<ling-house there. He was in business correspon<lence with, 
 aud sending goods to persons there known to be iu the confederate 
 KJ II 
 
 - ^1 
 
 I 'At 
 
 
1 : J t' 
 
 {:'■!' 
 
 ■'!■ 
 
 ri 
 
 m 
 
 'I 
 
 242 
 
 AMEUICAN-nHITISH ri.AIMS COMMLSSFON. 
 
 trade. He was suspected and watclied. It would have been wiclvod 
 ii('{?li^ence not to have watched him. Packages shipped by him were 
 found on board a confederate vessel captured in attempting to violate 
 the blockade — the "Margaret and Jessie." 
 
 Donncihul now in New York, he c6uld not lawfully aid the insurgents 
 by trading with them either directly or indirectly, even in the absence 
 of a blockade aiul an act of Congress prohibiting it. lie was now in 
 that respect bound by all the duties incun)bent on American citizens. 
 He must restrain his avarice— forego profit for the sake of the country 
 in which ho resided. 
 
 Non-intercourse between belligerents rests upon a principle of public 
 law, and needed no act of Congress or ])ublic proclamation to establish it. 
 Trade with the enemj' indirectly, via Nassa", was notless a violation of 
 this principle than direct trade. If there was probable cause to believe 
 him guijty of this, his arrest was fully warranted. If he so conducted 
 his business as to create this belief, temjited thereto by the hope of 
 gain, he must submit to the consequences imturally resulting from it. 
 He had abundant notice that he was suspected, and this should have 
 put him on his guard. * 
 
 December 31, 1803, he was again arrested, and was held six months 
 and two days. Was there i)robable cause for this arrest? It must r.ot 
 be forgotten that it occurred immediately after the hearing and ue""p«' 
 in the case of the " Margaret and Jessie," in which it appeared that 
 cases shii)ped by Rahming were on board, the marks unchanged, and 
 that the Government acted and must have acted upon what then aj) 
 peared, not what now appears. 
 
 To recapitulate : 
 
 1. Two years and a half before, he had shown himself willing, for 
 gain, to aid even in arming the insurgents. 
 
 2. Having a house of trade at Nassau, he had opportunities, nay, 
 excellent facilities, to participate in the conl'ederaio trade, 
 
 3. His business ostensibly with Nassau was large. 
 
 4. Much of the goods shipped by him were adapted to the confederate 
 demand. 
 
 5. Some of i)is shipments, it appeared, were actually found on board 
 a ship sailing inider the confederate tlag o) route to Wilmington. 
 
 One might well iufinire what more was needed to constitute probable 
 cause for his arrest. 
 
 Nor am I yet satisfied of his innocence. His own deposition, if fully 
 credited, ought perhaps to be deemed a sufficient explanation of nearly 
 everything. IJut I cannot accord full credit to his statements. He 
 furnished abundant reasons for (at least) caution in this respect. 
 He made his memorial under oath, stating when certain vessels 
 were detained, to his injury, viz, the Prince Alfred, in May, 1803, 
 and the Star of the West, in June. Jn his deposition he places 
 the first event sixteen months earlier, and the last eleven months 
 earlier. The explanation is that these errors nuist have been either 
 clerical or typographical. That they are not typographical appears 
 by our files. Then we have his positive and unnecessary afUdavit 
 in bankruptcy that he is an American citizen, and his explanation 
 that he <lid not read the affidavit ! The least tliat can reasonably ho 
 said of these explanations of his is that he is n(»i caYcful as to what \w 
 shall swear to; an oath being by him regarded as imposing upon the 
 conscience no obligation to know what it is tiiat is affirmed. What 
 would become of the administration of justice if all men were thus 
 careless ! 
 
1 WIC.vtMl 
 
 liiii were 
 o violate 
 
 isurgents 
 absence 
 
 is now in 
 citizens, 
 country 
 
 of public 
 tablish it. 
 >lation of 
 o believt^ 
 onducted 
 hope of 
 J from it. 
 »uld have 
 
 X months 
 must :.ot 
 nd ue""'^<' 
 ared that 
 iged, and 
 t then ap 
 
 illing, for 
 ities, nay, 
 
 >iifede rate 
 
 [ on board 
 
 :ton. 
 
 3 probable 
 
 )n, if fully 
 of nearly 
 ents. He 
 s respect, 
 in vessels 
 [ay, 18«.'5. 
 he places 
 >,n months 
 een either 
 1 appears 
 7 atUdavit 
 cplanatioii 
 ionably be 
 what he 
 upon the 
 ;d. What 
 wero thus 
 
 AGENTS REPORT. 
 
 243 
 
 His explanation of the marks on cases found on board the Margaret 
 and Jessie leaves something more to be desired. It is not very probable 
 that a steamship running the blockade would be laden, to any extent, 
 with empty barrels and boxes ; and where merchants use old cases iu 
 which to pack goods, they mark them anew. The old marks, it is true, 
 sometimes remain legibl'i, but the Margaret and Jessie had on board 
 several cases with only the mirks of It iliming's consignees. It hanlly 
 <ixplains this to say that his Nassau house was in the habit of selling 
 their empty boxes for what they would briny, unless we are also to sup- 
 pose that when the same cases were afterwards found in the confederate 
 steamship they were empty ! 
 
 In short, I am not sure that it was not to him a great favor that he 
 was discharged Avlthout a trial. 
 
 llis complaints of harsh and inhuman treatment in prison, other 
 than would ordinarily attend secure imprisonment, .M-e, I think, suffi- 
 ciently met by the evidence for the defense. 
 
 But I think that he was detained too long; that he was reasonably 
 entitled to either trial or discharge earlier. 
 
 L. 
 
 Opinion of Mr. Commissioner Frazer on the effect of failure of claimants 
 to Uike and prosccuic appeals in prize cases. {Seej). 90, ante.) 
 
 Upon the question whether a claim can now be maintained before 
 this commission for vessels and cargoes, or either, captured and by the 
 proper courts of prize condemned as lawful prize, and no appeal prose- 
 cuted from the judgment of such courts, there being nothing in the cir- 
 cumstances to liinder or embarrass the claimant in prosecuting such 
 ai)peal, I liave reached a conclusion in the negati\e. The reasojis which 
 have led me to this opinion I put in writing for the consideration of my 
 learned colleagues, with the remark that, if I am wrong, I shall gladly 
 yield whenever it is shown. 
 
 " Justice and equity " constitute the rule of our decision by the terras 
 of the treaty. This is the foundation of international law, and when 
 that law speaks upon a question, we must be guided by it; for both 
 countries, as well as the nations of Chri8tendomr,ecognize it« principles 
 as equitable and Just ; and we shall I e wholly at sea with no guide, and 
 disappoint both governments, if we dis egard it. If by the international 
 law there is no valid dair.i in such a cj se, then I know not how its valid- 
 ity can be maintained. True, the treaty confers upon us jurisdiction of 
 such claims, because it refers them to this commission. The question 
 ir. hand is uot of jurisdiction, Init it is whether th«i cases as stated in the 
 several memorials constitute claims which ought to be allowed. I do 
 not doubt the jurisdiction, but that does not determine their validity. It 
 only makes it our duty to decide whether they are valid or not; and 
 that decision should be according to the i)rincii)les of internation.al law. 
 
 So fiiT as I know, the approved writers upon international law are in 
 ticcord upon this question. 
 
 Thus Itutherforth : 
 
 Natural equity will not allow that tlio state Khould 1)0 .inswcrnldc for tlicir (tlio 
 oaptor'H) actH until thOi:eiict8 are cxnininod by all tht; ways which the .state has ap- 
 liointed for the iiurposc, ('i lust., book .', c. 1), i IG.) 
 
 If 
 
 ■^1 
 
 
 
 
 

 244 
 
 AMEKICAN-JililTlsn I'LAIM.S COMMISSION. 
 
 i**" JT/' 
 
 And again . 
 
 The subjects of a neutral state have no riylit to a]>p<!al to tlieir own state for a reriie- 
 «ly against the erroneous sentence of au inferior court till tliey have appealed to tint 
 superior court, or to the several superior courts if there are more courts of this sort 
 than one, and till the sentence has been conlirined in all of them. Kor these courtn 
 are so nuiny means appointed by the state to which the captors belony to examim? 
 into their conduct ; and till their conduct has been (^xamiiuMl by all these means, tlu- 
 state's exclusive right of judging continues. (Id.) 
 
 Wheaton, (Lawrence's ed.,) p. 675, says that " the neutral has no 
 ground of complaint" until the acts of the captors are conlirnied by the 
 sentences of the tribunals appointed by him to adjudicate in matters of 
 prize, what he suffers being the inevitable result of the belligerent right 
 of capture;" and cites Uutherforth at length in his text. 
 
 On the 7th March. 1802, Sir Koundell Palmer, solicitor-general, de- 
 clared in a debate in i'>r liament that it was the ordinary law of nations, 
 than which " nothing is better known," that the neutral must not int.M- 
 fere except by appeal, if the first decision in prize is deemed wrong. 
 (Law. Wheat., 6.S0 n.) 
 
 An English commission in 1753, in a report concerning reprisals by 
 Prussia for captures by Great Britain, said, concerning adjudications in 
 prize, "If no appeal is offered, it is an acknowledgment of the justice 
 of the sentence by the ])arties themselves, and conclusive." (Wheat., 
 Hist. Law of Nations, 210; see also, Wheat., Int. Law, (Lawr., 078.) 
 
 Wildman .seems to adopt this langUcage as expressive of the rule of 
 international law. (Inst., vol. 1, p. .'J53.) 
 
 Governor Lawrence, the learned editor of Wheaton, in a letter of date 
 May 21, 1871, published in the World newspaper, concerning this very 
 treaty, before its ratification by the American Senate, speaking of this 
 commission and the character of claims which it could allow consist- 
 ently with principles of public law, said : 
 
 So far as regards nuiritime prizes, it is a well-recogni/ed principle tliat no claim can 
 be made on the government of the captor till all the reuuMlies provided through the 
 prize courts luive been exhausted. (Pamphlet, pp. 'iri, "-i'.); see also, Law's note 6{», to 
 Wheat., Int. Law, IbU.) 
 
 Opposed to this uniform and unbroken current of authority, English 
 and American, Her Britannic Majesty's counsel cites only a single case, 
 which it is urged should outweigh all the text-w riters. The case cited 
 (bark Jones — American and British commission nnder treaty of 1853, p. 
 83,) was not a prize of war. It was a capture of a supposed slave-trader 
 made under British statutes. Tlie capture was made at St. Helena, 
 where there was a court of record having jurisdiction, but the vessel 
 was taken to Sierra Leon, a distance of one thousand miles, for adjudi- 
 cation. She was accpiitted of the charge, and it was adjudged that there 
 was no probable came for seizure. But the court assessed her with costs 
 for " resistance of the master to fair inquiry" — a personal matter of which 
 the court had no cognizance under the statute. There was no appeal. 
 These are the circumstances under which Judge Upham was of opinion 
 that the owner was not bound to take an appeal. Hr> seems to have 
 deemed the judgment for costs coram nonjudice and utterly void. It 
 further appears that the master did not know where to follow his vessel, 
 and was deprived of all means of following it, (p. 101.) He did not ap- 
 pear in court. How could he if such were the facts? Judge Upham, 
 the American commissioner, might well hold that under such circumstances 
 an appeal iras not necessary to perfect the right of the American Gov- 
 ernment to demand redress. 
 
AliKNTS KKPoKT. 
 
 245 
 
 
 The opinion of Jiidye Uphain seems to imply tliat in the absence of 
 .special circunistanirs an appeal would be neeesaary. 
 
 The opinion of .Mr. Hornby, British commissioner, is silent upon the 
 (piestiou of appeal; and indeed it is ditUeult to see, from his opinion, 
 (p. 107,) upon what ground he could have consented to award any dam- 
 ages unless it was that claimed by Judge Upham — that the court liad 
 no jurisdi'jtion under the statute to adjudge costs against the vessel 
 for the alieged personal misconduct of the master. He was willing to 
 allow for detention of the vessel and damages to her, and sacrifi.ce on 
 t'ijrgo. 
 
 The umpire expressed no opinion upon the question of appeal. 
 
 The case was peculiar, and 1 do not deem it an authority applicable 
 to the general question under (consideration. (Jeneral rules can never 
 safely rest upon the precedents of exceptional or hard cases. That 
 there should be some exceptions to the general rule as I <leem it to be, 
 1 have no doubt. For ijistance, if, as in the case of the Jones, an appeal 
 was rendered very dilticult or impossible, or was embarrassed, by the 
 act of the captors; or if i)revious ajFjJi'als in similar cases had shown 
 that the appellate tribunal of last reson did not govern itself by inter- 
 natiomil law, thus indicating that an api>"al would have heou useless, 
 or if it had been waived by tiie government of the captor, I would hes- 
 itate long before hohling that api»eal was recessary to lay the fouiula- 
 tion for an international claim. 
 
 But it is suggested that th<' text-writ»Ms cited are considering only 
 the grounds of war or reprisals, and not the cau^v's adeipiate to justify 
 a (ilaim for indemnity by one nation against auotlu'r. J cnn only say 
 that I think this is a mistake. Besiiles, their reasoning, if correct, is 
 absolutely conclusive against both. If, as Rutherford asserts, "natural 
 equity will not allow that tlie state should be answerable," or "if thr* 
 subjects of the neutral state have no right to appeal to their own state 
 for a remedy against the erroneous sentence;'' or if, a(H;ording to Whea- 
 ton, "the neutral has no ground of complaint," and what he suffers is 
 only "the inevitable result of the belligerent right of capture;*' or if, 
 according to VVildman, a failure to appeal is "an ackno\vle<lgment of the 
 justice of the sentence;' or if, according to Lawrence, "no claim can 
 l»e made on the government of the captor,'' then I know not upon what 
 ground it can be held that these claims can be sustained upon the facts 
 as alleged. 
 
 But reprisals are justified by the public hiw for refusal to repair an 
 injury, and when it is admitted that repi sals cannot be jnade, it is 
 thereby confessed that there is no just int«'rnational demand. 
 
 Granted a just claim or injury recognized by the jiublic law, then by 
 rliat law the state aggrieved is tlie exclusive juilge of the mo((e of redress. 
 
 The note of Mr. Seward of December L*2, 180'J, concerning the case of 
 the Will-o'the-Wisp, (No. 378, p. 3(),) has been referred to. AVas this 
 either a waiver of api)eal in that case, or the expression of an opinion 
 that an appeal was not necessary J That note does not stand alone. 
 The reply of Lord Lyons (pp. .'JO, 'M) seems to recognize that as a mat- 
 ter of right the United States might stand on the absencre of an a|)peal ; 
 but it makes an appeal to the magnanimity of the American (rovern- 
 ment in the particular case. Mr. Seward's answer thereto of April 2, 
 18G3, gives distinct notice that the ai)peal is n«)t waived, and that it is 
 deemed necessary before the executive government can be called upon 
 to consider the subjecct. 
 
 ■ik 
 
 ■:''M 
 
 It: K 
 
 I 
 
 *■ .III 
 
m 
 
 24G 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITISH (.'I.AI.MS COMMISSION. 
 
 M. 
 
 Mr. Commmioner Fnizer''8 opinion in the " liio drande"' casen. {Seep. 110, 
 
 ante.) 
 
 1. The remarks made iii the general arjjuineiit for the claimants nrg- 
 in{? that chiims of this character were inten<UMl to be referred to tliis 
 commission by Article XII of the treaty, seem unnecessary, inasmuch as 
 our juristlictipu of the cases is not questioned, and cannot be. 
 
 If it is intended to infer that there must be an aicard of HamageH, 
 from the fact that there is jurifidiction, I cannot admit the inference. 
 Jurisdiction is merely the power to hear and decide^ and necessarily in- 
 A'olves the duty of deciding favorably or adversely as the circumstances 
 shall warrant. 
 
 2. In like manner the somewhat extended remarks of the general 
 argument to establish that bona Jide trade with the Mexican port of 
 Matamoras was not a violation of the blockade, and could not lawfully 
 be reached by the bloj'kade, nuiy be i)ut out of the case. No such thing 
 was ever, for a moment, pretended by the United States. If, however, 
 it is intended to suggest the inference that damages must bo awarded 
 for these captures because it was adjiulged that these vessels were in 
 fact engaged in that bona Jide trade, then I deny the inference. The 
 reason is a good one for discharging the vessel, but it has little to do 
 with the question whether damages should be given. That depends 
 upon the inquiry, was there good apparent cause for making the cap- 
 ture. 
 
 3. In view of the instructions to the blockading fleets, (satisfactory to 
 Lord Kussell,) of the contemi)oraneous disavowals of Mr. Seward, and 
 of the uniform decisions of the American prize courts, there is no war 
 rant for the assumption (p. 21) that "these captures were intended to 
 affect the trade between Great Britain and ^lexico." 
 
 4. The doctrine that this commission may, by its decisions, disregard 
 the law of nations, in deference to whatever undefined notions of "equity 
 and justice" the several members of the commission may happen to 
 entertain from time to time, is to me a very great surprise. It brings 
 to mind the remark of an eminent English law judge, resisting the estab- 
 lishment of the jurisdiction of the courts of equity in that country, to 
 the effect that decisions in equity depended upon the individual con- 
 science of whosoever happened to be chancellor, and were therefore as 
 uncertain as the length of the chancellor's arm or foot! From such 
 equity as that he might well have wished the deliverance of his country. 
 The injustice of his reproach is, however, seen in the fact that "equity 
 follows the law" — abides by it — not only obeys but maintains it, and 
 administers justice according to a system of known and e^^^tablished 
 principles sanctioned by precedent; that it does not depend upon the 
 individual conscience of the judge. 
 
 What is the law of nations which it is insisted this commission may 
 disregard ? All detinitions of it are in accord, substantially, and none 
 of them better than Blackstone's, "that which regulates the conduct 
 and mutual intercourse of independent states with each other by 
 reason au<l natural justice." It is the natural law apidied to nations 
 in their relations with each other, so far as they have consented that it 
 shall be thus applied. It is wanting in some of the essentials of strict 
 law, however j it is not prescribed by a common superior, and its only 
 sanction is the public oinnion of Christendom. Nor is it a complete 
 code having an established rule for all questions that may arise. It is 
 
AGENTS REI'nRT. 
 
 247 
 
 yi't ill the period of its growtli ; but whenever it does speak it utters 
 the rule which the wisdom of the luitioiis lias by (loinuiou eoiiseiit found 
 to be most in consominee with reason and natural jnsti(;e. VVIien it 
 },'ive8 a nde for the government of a given case, it furnishes the full 
 measure of international obligation in that case — is the, only standard 
 by which con<lnct in that case can be properly tested. In other words, 
 it ascertains what is "ecpiity and justice" between nations. 
 
 If seeking to pay a compliment to the eminent men who negotiated 
 the treaty, I thiidc one would hardly choose to say, "they authorized 
 the mixed commission at w ill to substitute for the rules of right which 
 have been sanctioned by all Christian jmwers and the courts of both 
 countries the individual notions of the Commissioners thereafter to be 
 chosen." 
 
 The application sought of the i)roposition alluded to is, in substance, 
 that, though the facts before the prize court fully justitied its judgments, 
 according to the international law as even tlie IJritish courts would 
 themselves declare it to-day, yet this commission may, upon some 
 imaginary ground of e(piity, be bound nevertheless to award damages ! 
 I can only^ say that no such result can occur here, except over the most 
 emi)hatic and decided dissent with which 1 can oppose it. 
 
 The Science (No. iJOl) was found at anchor in the roadstead outside 
 the mouth of the llio ( Jrande, within less than a marine league of the 
 Texas shore, which was blockaded. Her outward cargo, then discharged, 
 had consisted in part of confeder.ate grey cloth, (L'!)0 bales.) She was, 
 in fact, consigned to Matamoras, and really had discharged her cargo 
 there. Matamoras was forty miles up the river. The Texas shore was 
 accessible and less than two and a half miles distant. Captured 
 November 5, 1803 ; had been there since August 12. 
 
 The Dashing Wave (No. 395) was found at anchor near the Science, 
 but further within American watersi No part of her cai'go was war 
 material. There were, however, two boxes (£12,000) of gold coin, £7,000 
 of which belonged to one Caldwell, whose nationality was unknown, but 
 it is evident he was not British. It appeared from papers on board that 
 at his request Lizardi & Co., British merchants, shipped it as theirs, the 
 bill of lading (p. 103) containing the unusual recital that it was "all 
 British property." She had discharged no part of her cargo. Caldwell 
 had re(piested this shipment to be made by Lizardi & Co., as their pro- 
 perty, in their name, with £5,000 to be advanced by them to him, if their 
 consignee at Matamoras approved of proposed investments of it. He 
 had specially recjuested that it be insured, "including the wai risk," 
 (p. 200.) She was, in fact, bound for ^Matamoras. 
 
 Caldwell made no claim, but a claim was made on behalf of Lizardi 
 & Co. for the whole £12,000, averring that " no other persons are interested 
 therein," and sworn to by their attorney. Also, in the same behalf and 
 to the same broad extent, by Armando IJrothers, to whom the consignee 
 had indorsed the bill of lading. 
 
 The Volant (No. 3.S8) was captured in American waters, the same as 
 the Science and Dashing Wave, loaded by same brokers who loaded the 
 Science, and had confederate gray cloth, (15 bales,) being balance of 
 invoice sent by Science. The remainder of her cargo was blankets, 
 shoes, and woolen stockings, and brandy. She had not discharged her 
 cargo. The invoice on board described the cloth (p. 7l») as four bales 
 blue mixed, one darkmivvd, ten .sAj/ blue. It seems that the whole was 
 mixed, no shy blue whatever. The manifest showed boots, but no hIioch. 
 
 The Sir William Peel (No. 243) was captined at the ihouth of the 
 Rio (Jrande, in Mexican waters. Slie had been there aboutthree mouths. 
 
 
24H 
 
 AMKIJICAX-KRITISII CLAIMS COMMISSI) »\. 
 
 Ilm' carp:o, as por inanift'st, had beoii mostly discliar^jcd at Mataiiioras, 
 and Klie had taken 901 bah's of cotton, part of hor return carjjo. 8l»e 
 had two 2r>-ponn<l ^iins mounted, uonsidurablu ammunition, .small arms, 
 tomahawks, {Mithisses, «S:c., for boarding*', enfjine.s six feet below water 
 Jine. liurdcn, 1,011 tons. Siffnal lijjhts were on her at night. 
 
 A confederate ottlcer, it w as sworn, chiimed to have received arms from 
 her, landed on the coast of Texas at nij>'ht ; and this was not contradi(;te(i, 
 though there was opportupity. There is other strong inculpatory evi- 
 dence, which is, however, «.ontradicted ; tending to show both the inward 
 and outward cargoes to liave been confederate property. 
 
 The question in all these cases is, whether or not there was probabh* 
 cause i'or cai)ture. The cargo of each of them was adapted to the Texan 
 market; and there is little (loubt that it was expected ultimately to find 
 sale ther*», whether flrst to enter into the general stock of Matamoras, 
 or merely to observe the lorm of passing through that place in transit 
 to Texas. 
 
 It seems from the evidence that merchandise unladen at the mouth ot 
 the Kio (irande for Matamoras was conveyed to the latter place either 
 in small steamers by the river, or in wagons by land. Jt seems, also, 
 that this land transportation by wagons was likewise practicable on the 
 Texas side from the coast at the mouth of the river. 
 
 It was a matter of notoriety that enormous supplies of military as well 
 as other goods for consumption in the confederacy had been introduced 
 through Texas direct, until the blockade of that coast was made etlec 
 tive, and afterwards through Matamoras. It was equally notorious 
 that there was in Texas •:i gieat demand for such goods when these ves- 
 sels were seized; and that it was the i)olicy of the rebel authorities to 
 ship cotton abroad rather than sell it at home. 
 
 These considerations are mentioned to show the strong temptations 
 which existed to introduce goods., and especially arujs and ammunition, 
 (which could not go through Matamoras,) into Texas direct. And if 
 accomplished it would avoid Mexican customhouse scrutiny, duties, 
 charges Jiud detentions, and all the inconveniences which flow from 
 circuitous and indirect methods. 
 
 Inasmuch as watchful Fe«leral cruisers were present almost constantly 
 any attempt by day to put goods upon the Texas shore would have 
 been too hazardous for probable success. If done at all, it must have 
 been under cover of darkness, and in small (juantities at a time, and by 
 the use of small boats. This woidd consume time, and would be greatly 
 facilitated by nearness of the ship to the Texas shore. 
 
 "The Science.'' The foregoing observations apply in all these cases. 
 With II burden of only JJOO tons, the length of her visit (nearly three 
 months) was of itself remarkable. She had the strong temptati()n to 
 violate the blockade, and she had phuted herself so near the Texas shore 
 that she hfid the opportunity to do it. These circumstances of suspicion 
 she created, and did not explain. If a ship may thus put herself so near 
 a blo(;kaded shore for months, where, under cover of the night, she can 
 land her cargo ujmn it, and this without any peril or cause of suspicion, 
 then, indeed, the right of blockade is less valuable to a belligerent than 
 I believe it to be. 
 
 I am thus led to the conclusion, not merely that the judgment of the 
 Supreme Court in the ease of the Science was not clearly wrong, but 
 that that judgment was clearly right. 
 
 '* The Dashing Wave.'' The foregoing remarks apjily with equal force 
 to the case of the Dashing Wave, except that she had but recently arrived 
 at the [dace where she was seized ; and in this case there is superadded 
 
ACKNIS RKI'OIM 
 
 '2l\) 
 
 but 
 
 rlio fiirts coin'citiiiijjf the coin o\' CiihlwoU. A Moxicaii would have no 
 occasion thns to conceal his owncrslii]). A Mexican would not have 
 feared to nuike <;laini in the prize (!ouit. He was either Mexi»;an or 
 confederate, for his country had political troubles. The conclusion is 
 ilifficult to avoid that he was an enemy, and his property liable to cap 
 lure, contaminating all that belouf^ed really to Li/ardi »& Co. 
 
 I i)erceive no error in tMe judgnu'iit of the Supreme Court in this case, 
 (except in its failure to condemn the coin as lawful prize. 
 
 "The Volant'' is a case much like the Dashing Wave. There was no 
 simulated ownership of cargo, but there was an apparent effort t<» mis- 
 lead by the invoice, as to the cloth — to conceal the i\u't that it was 
 confederate gray. 
 
 1 see no sutticient reason to hold in this that the Judgment of the 
 Supreme Court was wrong. 
 
 "The Sir William reer'diffcrs from the other cases in the fact that she 
 was captured in Mexican waters, where she had a right to be; though 
 it seems from the evidence that she had previ«uisly been in Texan 
 waters, hi all other respects the cas(» is stronger against the ship 
 than in either of the others. It is oidy by giving her the beneJit of 
 doubts that 1 can say she shoulil not have been liomlenuied. I am very 
 clearly of opinion that there was alumdant reason for seizing her and 
 sending her in for adjudication. 
 
 That she was taken in Mexican waters was a violation of the sover- 
 eignty of ^fexico, but not of the rights of the shii) and cargo, which 
 could be interiiosed for their protection except by ^lexico, was the 
 doctrine held by the Supreme Court. I think the proposition is fidly 
 supported by reason and the piinciples of Justice; and that it is a 
 sound principle of international law, best in ac(!«)rd with the adjudged 
 cases. 
 
 On the question of the assessment of damages in the ease of the 
 Sir William Peel, Mr. ("ommissioner Fra/er delivered the folh)wing 
 dissenting opinion : 
 
 Concerning the assessment of damages in the case of the Sir Wil- 
 liam Peel, (the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States 
 being deenu'd erroneous l>y my colleagues,) 1 felt constrained to dissent 
 upon an important ])oint. 
 
 The ship, and nearly all the cargo, having been restored, it was mate- 
 rial to ascertain the value of the |>roperty so restored at the date of restitu- 
 tion. If it was then worth as much as when captured, the only legitimate 
 •lamages, it seenuMl to me, woidd belts use<luring the period of detention, 
 togetlier with costs and expenses. The value, I thought, should be taken 
 at the time and i)lace of restitution, and not at a diiVerent tinu'. It had 
 been ascertained at that time by an appraisement by the prize court, one 
 <»f the appraisers being an agent of the claimants. This appraisement 
 was in round numbers, in gold, £(l7,r>(M>. l>ut the clainumts chose, at 
 very great expetise, to take the pro[)erty to Kugland, where they sold it, 
 realizing only £31),«i(>0 ; from which has been deducted all expenses of 
 removal to Kngland, insurance, and other ex[)enses of its preservation 
 and care after restitution, (a very consideralde aggregate,) and these 
 net proceeds, deducted from the value at the time of capture, have been 
 taken as a i)art of the damages awarded. 1 could not resist the conclu- 
 sion that the claimants had, after restitution, sacrificed the i)roperty 
 for but little more than half its value ; an<l I coubl not agree that the 
 United States should suffer that loss. 1 1 constitutes about three-fourths 
 •of the larg? suni awanled in the case. 
 
 
!']; 
 
 
 2r)0 
 
 AMKKH AN-hKITIsil (.I.AIMS ('« ».M \l|ss|n\. 
 
 N. 
 
 Umcntinii opinion of Mr. (JomminHiomr Fmzvr in thu cane of the Cinw^ 
 sian, y'on. 4;j2, i'SA, and 444. (*S'tr />. 14.S, ante^ 
 
 TIk^ only liiwf'iil ohjcot of u blockudc is to in jure tli«i ciMTiiy. Ihiict 
 tlicre cannot, coiLsistciitly with itnblic law, Ihmi blockade of a |)ort uiiIcns 
 it be an enemy's jiort. 
 
 But I am not prepared sny that the mere occupancy of a port, how 
 ever inecarions and temporary, by the bellif^erent maintaining; tin 
 blockade thereof, is such a possession as nuikes the port no longer the 
 enemy's, but that of the blockading bellijfcrent, thereby terminating,' 
 the blockade. 1 know of no authority which go(>s to that extent. In 
 such a cuso I think the question must bere;;arded as one of tirst impres 
 sion, open to the just influenco of every consideration which should atVcct 
 the decision of a new question. 
 
 But I do not think this question is necessarily involved in the decision 
 of the cases growing out of the cai)ture and condemnation of the Cir 
 cassian, and therefore I do not discuss it. 
 
 There has been much criti(!ism of the judgment of the Supreme Court 
 in the case of the Circassian, (li Wall., 135.) That judgment has been 
 questioned in (puirters entitled to great lespect; and it has, on sucii 
 occasions, uniforndy, 1 believe, been assume<l that at the date of the 
 capture of the vessel, (May 4, LSOli,) the port of New Orleans was in tin' 
 imssession of the United States, a possession which subsequent events 
 l)roYed to be (whatever may have been apprehended at the time) perina 
 nent and uninterrupted. And it has been assumed that the Suprcnn 
 Court held that, under such circumstances, the blockade of the port was 
 not brought to an end, This is a grave nusapprehension, not only ot 
 historical facts but of the doctrine announced by the Supreme Court : 
 and yet so easy to fall into, that only by care can it be avoitled. It i^ 
 undoubtedly a fact ot history that for several days prior to the captui' 
 at sea. of this ship, the military forces of the United States had actual 
 possession of the city of New Orleans, were not there immediately men 
 aced by any hostile force, and ever after held it. It is so natural to con 
 found the city with the port of New Orleans that the error is not won 
 derful. And yet the distinction is very wide, and practically very ini 
 portant. 
 
 The city of New Orleans, of which the United States lield possessi(»ri. 
 was a municipal corporation, possessing geographical boundaries deUni'<! 
 by the laws of the State of Louisiana. The boundaries included, at tin 
 utmost, only so much of that larger territory called the parish of Orlea^.s 
 as lies on the left bank of the Mississippi Kiver. But the National Govern 
 ment, having by the Constitution the control of conuu! rce, and consc 
 quently the power to detine the geographical limits of the ports of tin- 
 United States, had, by act of Congress taking effect September 10, 1H')0. 
 declared " that the port of New Orleans shall be and is hereby so extendc<l 
 as to embrace the whole parish of New Orleans, on both sides of tln^ 
 Mississippi Kiver." (0 Stat, at L., 458.) It was not the city merely, but 
 the whole port which had been blockaded. And the question before 
 the Supreme Court was not whether the possession of a port by a block 
 ading belligerent puts an end to the blockade. It is a disreganl of tlic 
 facts so to state it, ami it is a misapprehension of the decision of the court 
 to suppose that it was reached by determining that tpiestion in the neg 
 «tive. The real question was deemed by the majority of the court to bt; 
 whether possession of the city by the United States terminated its block 
 
 S ' ^ 
 
a<;knts ijkimum. 
 
 251 
 
 ir Cirnt'H 
 
 llvXH'l 
 >I't lllll('N>< 
 
 ort, how 
 liii;; tli< 
 mp'i' tl)c 
 iniiiatiii;^ 
 tent. In 
 it impri's 
 iltl atlect 
 
 (l«>cisii)ii 
 ' the Cir 
 
 ne Court 
 iuis been 
 , on Hueli 
 te of tlic 
 'HH in tlx' 
 nt events 
 p) perniii 
 Siipri iiif 
 port was 
 )t only ot 
 le Court : 
 ed. It is 
 e captui' 
 u\ actual 
 tely men 
 al to con 
 not won 
 very ini- 
 
 >ssessi(»n, 
 •sdetint-t! 
 m1, at the 
 f Orleans 
 1 Govern 
 1(1 consc- 
 •ts of the 
 10, 1850. 
 extended 
 
 L'S of tht! 
 
 ?rely, but 
 »n before 
 ■ II bh)ck 
 I'd of tl)e 
 the court 
 I the negr 
 art to bi- 
 ts block 
 
 ade of the port. It neetln ordy a careful reading of the opinion of the 
 Chief Justice to see that he saw ch'arly the dilUrence between the city 
 and the port of Js'ew OrhMins: and an e\aniination of tini dissenting; 
 opiiMon of Judge Nelson will also show that he entirely coid'ounded the 
 city with the port. 
 
 Ih it possibl<' to misunderstand the following language found in the 
 npiinon of the Chief Justice if 
 
 It (tlin lilockiulx) a|)i)li<><l not to tlu« city alone, lint controllcil tlio purt wliich inchidfA 
 tliu wholo piiriNh ot' Oi'lttauH and licH on Itotli hI(Ii>m of tlio MiH.sis.si|>|ii, and all tlio iioiIh 
 on that rivtT and on tliH laki-s east of tlio city. Now, it nniy 1m) well <!noii>;li roni't-dcd 
 that a continnons and coinpluto poK it sion of the city tniil thv port and ofthi! approachcH 
 from the Onlf, would inaku u lilockadit iinncc«>HNary, and wonhl Nn|MTHedo it. Itiit at 
 tiiu tiniu of thu captnrc of tint C'inasrtiaii tliuiu was itu mivli pomieixion. Only tho ci/y 
 wuH occnpicd, not tlir port. 
 
 Nothing can bo more certain than that the (Jhief Justi<'e thought there 
 was an important and very practical distinction between the city and 
 the port of New Orleans with reference to the question of blockade. If 
 not, then this languag«', marking so clearly the dilVerence between the 
 two things, and dwelling upon the fact that though the city was occu- 
 pied by the Federal forces, a very large part of the port was not so occu 
 pied, was itlle verbiage, inje(;te(l into the opinion for no purpose unless 
 it may have been to intjrease its volume! 
 
 I think the Chief Justice was correct in supjiositig that the diO'erence 
 Itptween the city and the port was of practical importance in the 
 case. A little consideration will make this (juite apiiarent. 
 
 No rebel military force, it is true, occupied that part of the port 
 (the right baidi of the river, many miles in length) which was not occu 
 pied by the United States on the 4th May, 1802; but it was, de facto, 
 territory of the rebel belligerent, nevertheles.s. Trade there was trade 
 with the enemy, to prevent which is the lawful purpose of blockade. 
 It is not necessary to the lawful blockade of an enemy's port that the 
 enemy should hold it by the presence of a military force. tSuppo.se, then, 
 that on the 4th ^lay, 1801*, the Circassian had steamed into the port 
 with a view to discharge her cargo at any landing on the right bank of 
 the river, within the port, rebel merchants, non-cond)atants, beingready 
 to receive it there ami transport it into the interior, no portion of the 
 goods being contraband, by what right, save that of blockade, could 
 the Federal fleet have interfered to prevent it ? The i)Osition and 
 strength of that fleet, it is true, enabled it to capture, without fail, every 
 vessel which might have attemi>ed su(;h a thing; but this physical 
 ability to capture di<l not, per se, confer tlu^ right to exeniise it ; nor 
 (lid it, per sv, einl the blockade. It is said that a municipal regulation 
 might have been enacted prohibiting such importations or controlling 
 them; and in execution of su<'h an enactment the force at hand coidd 
 have been employed; but this is no relief from the dilemma. The 
 right by municipal regulations to clo.se rel>el ports and render trade 
 with them unlawful, was claimed by the United States very early in 
 the rebellion. It was jiroposed, but the right to do so was denie<l by 
 (Jreat Britain and other neutral nations, an<l its exercise was forboriu> 
 iu deference to their protests. Even in the argument tor the <!laimant in 
 these cases, the right of the United States to exercise sovereign rights 
 (and belligerent rights at the same time) against the rebels to the preju- 
 dice of neutrals, is earnestly combatte<l by a gentleman who, as a writer 
 upon public law, stands deserve<lly high as an authority, and who, in his 
 published works, had before expre.s.se<l tin? same oi>inion. Whatever 
 
 ■W: 
 
 '"Li 
 
 if 
 
 Am 
 
 ^ •' 'I 
 
 m 
 
2 
 
 r>2 
 
 AMKhlCAN-IJKITIsn CLAIMS COMMISSION. 
 
 iiijiy l»o true as to tliat, it is voiy ccrtaiti tbat (Ireat Jititaiii, liaviii;: 
 <;()iitril)iit«'(l more than any other nation to iridace the United States ti) 
 forbear, by denying; the ri<^ht, eannot now fairly chiiin for her snbjects 
 tlie benefit of a principle vvliie.h, at the time, slie so stontly (h'nied. 
 Municipal rejjnlations prohibiting neutral imi)ort trade with any part 
 of the port of New Orleans not in Federal possession, would have been 
 as obnoxious to (Ireat Britain as if a like attempt liad been made at 
 tha*^ time eoncernin}; Mobile, Charleston, or Savannah. The prineiplc 
 which woidd have justified it in the one ease, wouhl have maintained it 
 in all. 
 
 If the consideration of the case left it doubtfid whether the judf^niont 
 of the Suineme Court was in aeeordane*; with public law, it would be 
 our plain <luty, aecordiuff to all authority, to disallow these <!laims. So 
 much deference in a case of doubt is due to a deliberi'itti imlgmont of a 
 court whose iniei)endence, impartiality, and learnini;' has jjlven it a 
 character in (Ireat Britain not less lofty than it possesses at liorie. 
 
 But I do not doubt. Comments and .'rititjisms upon thejud}>nient ot 
 the court had fallen nn«Ur my eye; trustin^jf to which, I confess 1 had 
 been somewh ; impressed Nvith serious doubts (to say the least) of the 
 lejrality of tiie condemnation. But a very careful study of tlu> case 
 shows that, in makin}»' such criticisms, no a(tcount has been taken of the 
 imimrtant fact that tlie possession of tiie United States forces at New 
 Orleans did not extend to the v/hole port when the ship was sei/.ed ; n<i 
 such entire possession beiuj; anywhere directly asserted. That the er 
 tor is one of inference, resulting; from the fact, doubtless., that the wiilcr 
 area of the port, as contradistinj^uished from the city of the same name, 
 lias usually escaped attention. J t follows, therefore, that the princii>U' 
 suppose<l to be violated by the court was really not violated at all, ami 
 that the question was not that which has bten s'ttnetinu's supposed, 
 it is not, I may hope, improper to say that the: best care and Judj; 
 ment whi<'h I am abh; to brinj;" to the consideration of the (^ase has re 
 suited in a clear (MUiviction that t' condemnation of the Circassian was 
 <'orre(!t. 
 
 O. 
 
 itpiniim o/' Mr. ('i»»i)ni,i.s!{>inr Frazer in flu' a^sts of tlir linj/uc, the Mint 
 imntdi, (iiut the IIHjn., Xos, UMJ, ."il."), aiui tb". {Sn' jk \'>'-i, untf.) 
 
 Tlie allowaiu'c «tf prospe(^tive earnin/.':s by vessels was «le!iie<l by the 
 iribnn;.! at (I«'neva iiintiiiinoi(nljif. it is not, so far as I am aware, ■dlowei! 
 by tii«'. municipal law of any civiliz^'d iiation anywhere. The reason i^ 
 obvia'is and universally ret.H»<>ni/ed amoi' jurists. \(, is not possible tn 
 ascertain such earnings with any appntvimatiru* to certjuinty. Then- 
 are a thousand uidvuown continjjencies, the happening of any of which 
 will render incorrect any estimate of them, and hetu'e result in injustific. 
 
 Who can siiy that the Monmouth would have reache<l Savannah at 
 all 1 That she I'ould have procuied a cargo of cotton at '^d. per jtound. 
 the lowest freight in pro«)l ;' Who <'an -v.y that she would ha\c goi 
 better or as good rates as that J NN'hy could she have done l)ctter :' 
 There is no reason. Who <ran say that she could have lieen laden i«nti 
 sailed before the blockade would have stopped her f The witnesses d<> 
 
AGENTS KEP<>RT. 
 
 
 not say so, bin ojiiy 
 
 ly '-if she had mot no (V'tention or accident." (,'au 
 tliis coiniuissioii say so ? It is i)al|)able tliat we can oidy conjecture, 
 and conjecture it! no tit basis for an award of damages. We shouhl 
 liave had evidence more satisfactory from the claimant, such as the pre- 
 vjiilinj? rate of chaiter of such a vessel at the time and phvce. Under 
 such circumstanc«'s we are left to estimate the vabo of the vessel for 
 retiii'ticargo upon very unsatisfactory evidence, i base my estimate 
 npou Bottou-freif^ht at '{d. per pound, Ifcause there is, in my judgment, 
 ii greater probability, iii view of all contingencies, that this is above 
 ratlu'r than below a just estimate. 
 
 These observations apply also to the case of the lioyne, heretofore 
 decided. I now «loubt whether this is not too much. It assumes that 
 each contingency would have, been avoidetl, the happening of any one 
 of whiclj would have prevented this vessel from doing as well as somi* 
 others; and this assumi»tion in favor of the claimant is «|uite as mucii 
 iis, in myj'idguMMit, we may nnilce, with due regard to public 'aw, as 
 declared at Geneva, an<l to tiieprinci[)les of justice, as recugni/. u every- 
 where. 
 
 The Monujouth, (Xo. 'Mii.) The President, by proclamsition of April 
 ii>, 1H01, gave public notice of ai)urpose toldockade the ports of H;»uth 
 Carolina, Georgia, a ul of the States sourh thereof, aiuiouncing that a 
 "competent force irould be posted " for that purpose. The pro<lamation 
 amiounced further that any vessel sJi>proaching or attempting to leave 
 "either of said ports'' with a view to violate " such bh»ckade," would be 
 warned bv„the «'omnunMler of " one of the bhickiuling vessels,'' who 
 would indorse sn;di wanting and the <late thereof on her register, and 
 any snbsetpient attempt of the same vessel to enter or leave "//>r hlork 
 uik'd porf'' (certainly meaning every port coveviMl by the warning) would 
 result in capture, it <"annot be supposed tliat it was inteinled that this 
 warninu' was to be r.'peateil off each poit bloekadcd. 
 
 In these cases tin* warning was by a vessel blo<'kading Charleston 
 and oil that i)ori be/ore tlr.'re was any actual bkxdvading force otf ►Savan- 
 nah, and was indoised thus: 
 
 I! )ar(li'tl, iiiforiiiol oC tlif hlockmlc, iiiul wanu'd oil' Mm «'<iust of all tin- Soiitlicrii 
 StiUt'H hy tlu' I'uiU'il Slates straiasliip .\iii;;ara, May I'i, \^l\\. 
 
 i:i»\VAW;i('. I'OTTKK'. 
 Lii iitnunil I'liilid Slaitt A'oc//. 
 
 This warning was not, ^nid is not. disavowed. It must, therefore, hav<' 
 the .same etlect as if the olliecr giving it had been expressly instru(!te«l 
 liy the highest authority to give it in that form. It must be regarded 
 as the act of tiie I nited States, and was notice to the vessel that all the 
 Southern ports embraced within the proclamation were then actually 
 l»loeka«led, and that any subseipient atti-mpt of the vessel warned to 
 enter any of such ports would result in capturt^ 
 
 A vessel bound for Savannah, thus warned, it is true, might have dis- 
 regarded the warning, and could lawfully hav«? proceeded to Savannah 
 itecause there was not, in fact, any for<M' blockading that port. If cap 
 itired si.ii wouhl, un«iuestionrtl>ly, have been discharged with damag«'s 
 l>.y the i)rize court. 
 
 lint must the neutral merchantman run the hazard of attempting to 
 enter Savannah ? Had she fmind there an actual blockade and been 
 eapturetl, her previous warning would have been good, and her <'on 
 deimuition an good prize would have been certain. Tliero is in the 
 tacts every elenn^nt of a strong (»bligatiou upon the United States, and 
 ill favor of a vessel which, on the faith of the warning given, fully ir 
 
 -4 
 
 
 
254 
 
 AMERICAN-BRITI.SII CLAIMS COMMI8SION. 
 
 spected it, and by so doing sufi'ered loss, to make good that loss. Tlu' 
 neutral vessel, ignorant as to the facts, had a right to act upon the 
 warning; and I am compelled to hold that, in doing so, she acted with 
 all prudence and propriety, and that, judging, as her captors must at tho 
 time, any other course would have been rashness and folly. A regard 
 for the interests of his owners, as well as respect for the United States, 
 required that the master should abandon any purpose to enter Savun- 
 nail. 
 These observations apply also to Xos. 21 G and 4G7. 
 
 , ,ii 
 
Iloss. Till- 
 
 upon the 
 
 icted with 
 
 mst at tli(> 
 
 A i-egard 
 
 ted States, 
 
 Iter Savan- 
 
 riSTDE 
 
 '-II 
 
 A. 
 
 Adam, W., r«. I ' iiitod States. No. 72 l")'.* 
 
 Adela, IJiitiHli steamship 12H 
 
 Adt'lso, British wdioojicr 1)2 
 
 Adlam. G., r«. United SI ates, No. 40 14 
 
 AiKhnrfh, Briti.sh schooner ;H 
 
 Alexander, If. S. C. A., executors of, rs. United States, No. A'> !'> 
 
 Amelia, liritisli ship 90 
 
 Appendix I7u-2r>4 
 
 Argonaut. British schooner S)l 
 
 Ariel, British brig <)0 
 
 Ark\vright,T.,r«. United Slates, No. :?02 47-49 
 
 Arrest and iniprisoninent, claims for wrongful JSl-H? 
 
 Ashley, W. 0.,rs. (ireat JJritain, No. 19 ;{0-:V> 
 
 Ashton, W., m. United States, No. :«:> 09 
 
 Atkinson. ("., c*. United States, No. '.\S0 ;Vi 
 
 Award of coninii.ssion. final '229 
 
 A w;inls against tlie Unilcsd .*>tates, detailed aeeounl of 8 
 
 B. 
 
 IJailey & Ueethiiiii !•.•<. United States, No. 314 ir.4 
 
 Rar.lay, A., rx. United States, No.;') 11-14,.''0 
 
 ISarlow, B., receiver, Are., rs (Jreat Britain. No. 4 2\-'M) 
 
 Barrett, K. A., vs. United States, No. 18 l.')4 
 
 Karriin, Forbes \ Co., rx. United Slates, No. ill 4 10)4 
 
 Barry, T., rx. United States, No. 127 t)9 
 
 Bennett, W. H., r«. United States, No. 1;17 4.'> 
 
 Bevitt, .J. .J., rx. United State.s, No. 104 t)8 
 
 Bigland, A., rx. United Slates, No. 199 BU 
 
 Biiiney, .1. \V., rx. United SUites. No. ;{.">2 <>3 
 
 IJIanche, claim for destruction of cargo of Ihilish steamship .M 
 
 Booth, W. B., rx. United States. No. 14:? 72 
 
 Borron, .1., rx. United .Slates, No. 144 r»2 
 
 f<ostock, K.. rx. United States, No. V.i'.i 4.% 
 
 (!<i\vden, K.. rx. United States, No. 419 H4 
 
 liowie, K. L. II.. rx. United Slates, No. :VH) 17 
 
 Hoyne, British ship... , ir>0 
 
 I5iain, V..,rx. United States. No. 447 fil 
 
 Brainerd. A, ()., rx. Cwnt Britain, No. 9 21-:tO 
 
 Brailhwaite, J., rx. United States, No. HI 42 
 
 Brand, .1. U., rx. United States, No. 1-0 \x 
 
 Breck & Wetlierhee, r«. (Jreat Jtritain, No. H 21-:«t 
 
 Brook, 8., r«. United States, No. IK) 4:i 
 
 Brown A Sharj), rx. Unit c«l States, No. ',\',\ r)2 
 
 Buck, K. P., and others, r». (Jreat Britain, No. lit -12 
 
 Burton, <). A., receiver, Ac., rx. (Jreat Britain, No. \'.\ 'il 
 
 ihish, F. T., and others, rx. (Jreat Britain, No. 11 32 
 
 - %.■ 
 
im 
 
 ll 
 
 If 1 
 
 ! 1 
 
 i!^ :i 
 
 
 
 !:8 
 
 
 
 f2i * 
 
 
 •Joi; 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 C. 
 
 (Jairiis, .F., \ Co. ex. I'nilrtl States, No. :W .V,' 
 
 Cali-ntta salt petit! caHcs '\'2-'.]^ 
 
 dissi'iitiiifjf opinion of Coinitiissiont-r I'la/iT in ti'M> 
 
 Caldttrwooii, M. M.. i-h. rnitt-d States, No. 'M\0 17, 1H,;V^ 
 
 Canipbcll, A. E., & L'(»., r». I'nitod States, \o. "i'.HI IC.:! 
 
 CarliHle, .f. M.. appointed connMid of Her Ilritannio Majesty i; 
 
 Cannult, J. W., vs. Knited States, No. Kl :>•> 
 
 Carniody, .1,, vx. I'nited States, No. K') (17 
 
 Canty, (i. F., r«. I'nited States, No. 44;J f*:, 
 
 Circassian, Britisli steauisliip 141 
 
 disscnlinji opinion of Coniniissioner Fra/er in y'lii 
 
 Claims of AnierieuM ititi/ens against Great Ltritain, schedule of '216, '2IT 
 
 index to sumo 5>"J7 
 
 amount and disposition of 
 
 classitieation of 8, It 
 
 detailed report of 21-41 
 
 Uritisli snWJects iii^uinst United State.s, schedule of 180-21.'. 
 
 index to sumo '2lS,)i2' 
 
 amount and tlisposition of 
 
 elassilication of !• 
 
 detailed rejiort of 41-17:! 
 
 Cleary, W., r«. Tniled .States, No. -J-iU 45, Kl-J 
 
 Clon)j;li, L. U., administrator, Ac, i'**. (jireat liritain, No. 14 21 
 
 Collie, Alexander, cm. United States, No. ;{7(i r»'2 
 
 Collie, Gcorjje, r». United States, No. 458 iri 
 
 Colnmliia, S. C, destruction oi property at ^tt' 
 
 Commission, {general history of proceedings 8-11 
 
 organization of «>, T 
 
 C<mfederate delit, ehiini of liability for l.')4-1.7J 
 
 Corti, Count Ijouis, named eommiasioner Ity both governments eonjoiutly ti 
 
 re(| nested to preside 7 
 
 Cotton, claims for dt!stru<'tion of, in insurrectionary States .V.?-."!.'. 
 
 t'ox, II. E. and A., f«. United .States, No.'J'iU Til 
 
 Cox, Thomas C, appointed secretary 7 
 
 Crawford, .1. I., r«. United States, No. 7!> (i7 
 
 Crow ther, L., vh. United .States, No. 'M)2 fl 
 
 Crntcliett, .1., f«. United .States, No. 4 H 
 
 Cumniing, .1., i'm. United .states, No. 1)4 •>'•> 
 
 Curtis iV I'eabody vn. tJreat liritain. No. Im :i'.' 
 
 D. 
 
 ])ashing'>Vave, Mritisli brig Il<> 
 
 Davidson, U., m. United .States, No. (Ui 4:'. 
 
 Dean, 1'. (J. H., /«. United .States, No. 4<)r> b.'> 
 
 1). F. Keeling, British schooner 1 1 'J 
 
 Dolphin, HritisU steamship '••■•.' 
 
 E. 
 
 Eakin. I{., r»t. United .States, No. IIH I.'i 
 
 Echo, British schooner II* 
 
 Ellsworth, .1. II., rx. United States, No. 421 >^4 
 
 Empress, British bark I2'> 
 
 Eneas, .1., r*. United Slatts, No. 121) <>:? 
 
 Everext, C. F., »•«. (Jreat Britain, No. l(t 21 
 
1 i1 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 257 
 
 :w-:!- 
 
 y:!(j 
 
 17, I8,r,t> 
 
 lt;:i 
 
 
 141 
 
 
 y5ii 
 
 .'216, 
 
 '21T 
 
 
 '2-.'r 
 
 
 ,- 
 
 
 8.;» 
 
 .. 21-11 
 
 .180- 
 
 -'21.-. 
 
 .'ilS, 
 
 •2-27 
 
 
 
 -.41 
 
 -i::: 
 
 ..45, 
 
 ltl-2 
 
 
 •21 
 
 
 r.-j 
 
 
 :.-^ 
 
 
 511 
 
 .. ,"-11 
 
 
 • 1,7 
 
 .154- 
 
 -L7J 
 
 (i7 
 fl 
 
 n 
 
 III) 
 4:: 
 
 lit; 
 
 15 
 117 
 
 >-4 
 1'25 
 
 (■>:; 
 •21 
 
 F. 
 
 I'uge. 
 
 Facer, T. II., '•«. Unitoil States, No. '203 70 
 
 Field, M., admiiilHtratrix, &c., r.v. Oreat Hiitain, No. 5 21 
 
 First National Bank of St. .Vlbaus m. (iroat Britain, No. 1 21 
 
 Forbes, J. C, vs. United Status, No. :100 52 
 
 Forwood, W. B., vs. United States, No. .VM 84 
 
 Frazer, Hon. .1. S., named commissioner by President of tbo I'nited Statec ti 
 
 opinions delivered by, in the foUowinjj cases : 
 
 abandoned and captnred property cases •2:<7 
 
 Alexander's case, No. 45 Ki 
 
 Calcutta saltpetre cases 2:10 
 
 Circassian 2.50 
 
 Halley's case, No. 205 \ 20 
 
 Hauua's case. No. 2 239 
 
 Henderson's case, No. 41 234 
 
 Mrs. Brain's case. No. 447, and } qjo 
 
 Mrs. Sherman's case. No. 395. ^ 
 
 On non-appeal in prize-cases 243 
 
 Rahniiug's case. No. 7 241 
 
 Rio Grande cases 24(5 
 
 Saint Albans raid cases 30 
 
 Warned off cases 252 
 
 Fuller, W. A E. D., rn. Great Britain, No. 3 21 
 
 G. 
 
 Georgia, British ship 139 
 
 Qeziena Heligondn, cargo of Dutch brig 127 
 
 01over,H., i;«. United States, No. 134 70 
 
 Grace, M., va. United States,'No. 132 45 
 
 Granite City, British ship 124 
 
 Grant, T., v/>. United States, No. 211 95,102 
 
 Grant, Thomas, tobacco of, (prize) 95 
 
 Grayson, Ann, admiustratrix, «fcc., rn. United States, No. 291 19 
 
 Gribble, J., m. United States, No. IIG 14 
 
 Gurney, Right Honorable Russell, named as commissioner by Her Britannic 
 
 Majesty G 
 
 H. 
 
 Haddon, S. II., vs. United States, No. 107 52 
 
 Hale, Robert S., appointed agent and counsel of the United States 7 
 
 letter of, to the Secretary of State 3 
 
 Hall, K., r«. United States, No. 318 80 
 
 Halley, J. B., administrator, &c., i>. United States, No. 205 19 
 
 Hanua, J. H.,vs. United States, No. 2 .')fi 
 
 opinion of Commi-ssioner Fra/er in 234 
 
 Hayes, Misses, r«. United States, No. 100 45 
 
 Hiindorsou, H., r«. United States, No. 41 44 
 
 dissenting oi>inion of Commissioner Fra- 
 
 zer in 234 
 
 Hiawatha, British bark 130 
 
 Hilja, British bark 151 
 
 Hill, M.S., r». United St atcs, No. 198 74 
 
 Hodges, W. R., r«. United States, No. 354 HW 
 
 Howard, Henry, appointed agent of Her Britannic Majesty fi 
 
 Hubbell, W. W., t«. Great Britain, No. 17 40 
 
 Huntington, C. II., r». Great Britain, No. 2 21 
 
 17 H 
 
 " .; .it 
 
 i'^'^'^ 
 
 
 ' ■*:'■ 
 
IIP' 
 
 m 
 
 
 258 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 I. 
 
 Pngp. 
 
 Intorost, allowaiico of 21 
 
 Irvin, S., & Co., iv. Uuitud Statt'8, No. ;J22 .'>S 
 
 l«abol, British hris Ill 
 
 Isabella Thoinpsuu, British brig ICt 
 
 J. 
 
 Jackson, S. B., (•«. Uiiitctl States, N». 'ir>.') 70 
 
 Jacobs, D., !•«. Ignited States, No. 2',W 'l.'i, ;'>•* 
 
 Jaiio Campbell, British schooner 1 is 
 
 Jariuan, S., vs. United States, No. 41H hj 
 
 Joluison, C. J., execnlrix, &c., rs. United States, No. 441) 17'J 
 
 Jniisdictiou a« to person, <inestiou8 relating to 1 1-'<>(J 
 
 snbject-mat ter fil 
 
 in prize-cases, as aflected by want of appeal to court of ultimate 
 
 resort 88-W 
 
 as affected by want of appeal to court of ultimate 
 
 resort, opinion of Comnussioner Frazer upon 24 
 
 K. 
 
 Kator, J., r». United States, No. 11) 44 
 
 Kno wles, E., vs. United States, No. 175 4'J 
 
 L. 
 
 Lafouo, H., and J. T. Lawrence, vessels of, (prize) 127 
 
 Lake Erie raid, case jjrrowiug out of 30 — :W 
 
 Lane, \V. H., (•«. United States, No. i» 47 
 
 Langdon, S. W., r«. Great Britain, No. 6 21—30 
 
 Lavell, B.,rs. United States, No. 130 45 
 
 La^Yrie, Son & Co., i'«. United States, No. 321 o^ 
 
 Levy, S. G.. vh. United States, No. <>1 (ifi 
 
 Lewis, S., r«. United States, No. 2S7 102 
 
 M. 
 
 Macaulay, .) . A., vs. United States, \o. 200 ,')l 
 
 MeCabe, E., vs. United States, No. 107 74 
 
 MoCann, J., vs. United States, No. 173 7:i 
 
 McDonald, A. K., vs. United States, Nos. 42 and 334. 52— Ti') 
 
 McElhose, J. B., vs. United States, No. 22.') 47 
 
 Mellugh, E., fs. United States, No. 3.'>7 01 
 
 McKeown, R., vs. United States, No. 4C3 87 
 
 McMalion, T., vs. United States, No. 130 ,, 4.') 
 
 McVey , J., vs. Un i ted States, No. 20S 7' 
 
 Martin, J. & R., i-». United States^ No. 4;',4 .')1 
 
 Matamoras, lirilish schooner 114 
 
 Maxwell, r. , vs. United States. No. 3H5 170 
 
 Miller, W. S., vs. United States. No. l.-)7 I'^O 
 
 Milner, I., vs. United States. No. 207 , 
 
 Minnie, British brig 9"* 
 
 Miscellanrous British cases 153 — 173 
 
 Mogridge, J. F., vs. Ignited States, No. 345 10 
 
 Money, U. H. & J. W. B, i/i. United States, No. 321 108 
 
 Monmoutli, British ship '. 150 
 
114 
 
 79 
 
 148 
 
 \7-2 
 11-V>U 
 
 ;:i 
 
 88-9i 
 24 
 
 44 
 
 4'.t 
 
 127 
 
 30— :}2 
 
 47 
 
 yi— 30 
 
 4'. 
 
 ~}*^ 
 
 m 
 
 i(;2 
 
 r.i 
 
 74 
 
 7;> 
 
 52—0:. 
 
 17 
 
 (il 
 
 «7 
 
 ., 45 
 
 77 
 
 f)! 
 
 114 
 
 , 170 
 
 i';i) 
 
 If* 
 
 ....ir.:i— I7:i 
 ■ ■ i(i 
 
 ,.. .. 1()8 
 
 .. ' . ' mo 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 259 
 
 Pnge. 
 
 M. S. Perry, alias Siilvor, BritiHh stoanuT 9, 123 
 
 Mniirofs, J. T., v^. United StHtes, No. 2:{r» 78 
 
 Miirtu, J. rs. Uuitutl States, No. 195 73 
 
 N. 
 
 Napior, British brig 88 
 
 National character, priiiciplos control ling iinestioli of 11 — 20 
 
 Nelson, H B., rn. ITnitotl States, No. 140 47 
 
 Nicolson, C. J., rx. United State.**, No. 'io'.\ 77 
 
 Nolan, J. M. 1*., ix. United States, No. 272 79 
 
 Nolan, M., rv. United States, No.27:i 80 
 
 O. 
 
 O'Connor, V. O'B., vs. United States, No. 404 58 
 
 O'Hara, A., r«. United States, No. 135 45 
 
 O'Malligau, P. J., vs. United States. No. 47»> 74 
 
 P. 
 
 Pacifiquo, British schooner 95 
 
 Parr, J. F., vs. United States, No. 285 80 
 
 Patrick, W., vs. United States, No. 97 68 
 
 Pearl, British steamship 115 
 
 Peterhort', British steamship 136 * 
 
 Pratt, E. W., vs. United States, No. 6 62 
 
 Prince Leopold, British schooner 91 
 
 Prize Cases 87-150 
 
 general statement of nninber, anionnt, &.c H7, 88 
 
 jnrisdictiou in, as aflectiHl by want of ap|>eal to conrt of nltimate 
 
 res<»rt ' 88-92 
 
 opinion of Commissioner Frazer in 243 
 
 Property destroyed by rebels, i;lainis for 56-60 
 
 injnred or destroyed by United States forces, claims for 49-55 
 
 taUon and apjtropriated to nse of United .States, claims for 41-49 
 
 under abandoned and captured property act, claims for 47-49 
 
 opinion of Commissioner 
 Frazer in 237 
 
 K. 
 
 Uahming, J. C, vs. United States, No. 7 63 
 
 i>pinion of (.'(unmissioner Frazer in 241 
 
 Heading, F. K., vs. United States, No. 43 - - 65 
 
 li< dgate, S. J., ••<. United States, N(. 420 84 
 
 Uiley, T., vs. United States, No. 192 74 
 
 liio Grande cases, the 100-1 14 
 
 opinion of Commissioner Frazer in 246 
 
 Uoai'i, J. \V., vs. United States, No. 154 159 
 
 "ulos of the commission 177-179 
 
 8. 
 
 S;i>nt Albans raid, cases growing out of 21-30 
 
 Sii'lie Mageo, British bark 98 
 
 Sul vol . alias M. S. Perry, British sti^aiuer 91, 123 
 
 Sandeis &, Sims' vessels, (prize) 116 
 
 Surah " rr, British brig 91 
 
 1$^ 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 260 INDEX. 
 
 Science, British baric 112 
 
 Scott, J. W., va. United States, No. 22(5 , Ifi, 78 
 
 Sharpe, J. W., r«. United States, No. 92 15 
 
 Shaver, J. I., vs. United States, No. 51 • fifi 
 
 Sherman, E., va. United States, No. 359 (51 
 
 Ship cases, index to 227-229 
 
 Sir William Peel, British steamship 100 
 
 Smith, H. R., i'«. United States, No. 461 H(] 
 
 Smythe, W., vs. United States, No. 1533 51 
 
 Springbok, British bark 117 
 
 Sterling, T., t'«. United States, No. 12 45 
 
 Stewart, J., ra. United States, No. 339 60 
 
 Stott, J., va. United States, No. 271 66 
 
 Stovin, J. C, 1-8. United States, No. 23 64 
 
 Survival of claims for personal injuries 61 
 
 opinion of Commissioner Frazer in 240 
 
 Syme, J., administrator, &c., vs. Uuited States, No. 139 70 
 
 T. 
 
 Tooraen, M. M., v«. United States, No. 184 17 
 
 Tovell, J., vs. United States, No. 446 8(> 
 
 Treaty, articles of, relating to commission 175-17? 
 
 .Tripp, J. W., v». Great Britain, No. 15 38 
 
 Turner, E. W., v«. United States, No. 34 47 
 
 Turner, J., vs. United States, No. 44 55 
 
 V. 
 
 Vernon, J. M., vs. United States, No. 364 81 
 
 Volant, British brig HI 
 
 W. 
 
 Wales, T. B., and others, vs. Great Britain, No. 16 32 
 
 Walker, A. R.,v«. United States, No. 13 153 
 
 Ward, T., v«. United States, No. 1 41 
 
 Warned-oflF cases, the 150-153 
 
 opinion of Commissioner Frazer in 252 
 
 Watkins & Donnelly, administrators, &c., v«. United States, No. 329 45 
 
 Weeks, J. S., vs. Great Britain, No. 7 21 
 
 Wilkinson, J., v«. Uuited States, No. 28 42 
 
 Will-o'-the-Wisp, British ship 92 
 
 • Wooil & Hey worth vs. United States, No. 103 53 
 
 Y. 
 
 York, claim for destruction of British ship 51 
 
 o 
 
 fifi 
 
 IP' 
 
112 
 
 .. 10,78 
 
 15 
 
 fifi 
 
 (51 
 
 '227-2'il) 
 
 .. 100 
 
 H() 
 
 51 
 
 117 
 
 45 
 
 60 
 
 f)6 
 
 64 
 
 61 
 
 .. 240 
 
 70 
 
 17 
 8(> 
 ,175-177 
 38 
 47 
 55 
 
 81 
 111 
 
 'A2 
 
 .. 15:{ 
 
 41 
 .150-153 
 .. 252 
 45 
 21 
 42 
 92 
 53 
 
 51 
 
 
 . \i 
 
 If'. 
 
 1 t}> 
 

 V' 
 
 i l' 
 ^1 
 
 I.- 
 
,. -(,< „! 
 
 <i V. ■';' M 
 
 l.-C0RRE8P0NDEiNCE BETWEEN Mil. FISII AND SIR EDWARD 
 THORNTON, PRELIMINARY TO THE NEGOTIATIONS. 
 
 >i 
 
ipFi 
 
 
 ■ s^ 
 
 1 
 
 ■|f^; 
 
 
 1* ■ 
 
 
 si; 
 
I.-CORKKSIM)NI)EN('K HKTWKKN MR. FISH AND Sill KDWAllD 
 THORNTON RKLATIVK TO THK FORMATION OF A IIIOH 
 COMMISSION. 
 
 1. Sir FMirard Thornton to Mr. Fixh. 
 
 \VAh'iiiN(JT()N', Jannttry :Hi, 1871. 
 
 HiK : III complianc*^ with an iiistruetioii wliioli \ liiiAo reccivoil Iroiii 
 Hiirl (Iranvilh', 1 liavc the honor to stall; that hoi- .Majosty's governiuoiit 
 (le«*in it of iniportaTUM' to the -rood r.'hitiont* 'vliich they aio cvtT anxiouH 
 sliouhl subsist ami In- stron/^'vni'J lu'twoen the Uniti'd States and 
 (ireat JSritain, that a trieiidly and coiaith'te uiMhTstandin;; sliouhl be 
 come to between the two jfovernnients as to tiie extent ot tlie rijfhts 
 which belonj; to the citizens of the United tjtates and l\vv Majesty's 
 subjects, respectively, with reference t'> the lisherit s ,»u the coasts of 
 Her Majesty's possessions in North Ainerica, ami as to any other ques- 
 tions between them which alVect the relations of the liiiled States 
 toward those possessions. 
 
 As the consideration of these matters would, however, involve in- 
 vestifjations of a somewhat comi)licated nature, and as it is very desir- 
 able that they should be thorou;;hly examine*!, I am din'cted by Lord 
 (Iranville to propose to the (lovernment «)f the United States the ap- 
 liointment of a Joint hi<,di commission, whi(;h shall be composed of nu>m- 
 bers to bt) named by each government; shall liold its sessions i».t 
 Washington; and shall treat of and «liscuss the mode of settling ihe 
 dillerent questions which have arisen out of the li.slieries, as well as all 
 those which allect the relations of the United States toward Her 
 Majesty's possessions in North America. 
 
 1 am contident that this proposal will be nu't by your Ciovernment in 
 the same cordial spirit of friendship which has induced ller Majesty's 
 government to tender it, and I cannot doubt that in that case the 
 result will not fail to contribute to the nuiintemmce of the good relations 
 between the two countries which I am convinced the Government of the 
 United States, as well as that of Her Majesty, equally have at heart. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
 obedieut, humble servant, 
 
 KDWAIH) THOllNTOX 
 
 Hon. Hamilton Fi.sir, tt-c, tCc, dr. 
 
 ii. . 
 
 •fl 
 
 "I' "■ . 
 
 
 I 
 
 2. Mr. Fish to Sir lAhcard Thornton. 
 
 Depaktment of State, 
 ^ Waahinyton, January 30, 1871. 
 
 Sib : 1 have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of Jan- 
 nary 20, in which you inform me, in compliance with instructions from 
 Earl Granville, that Her Majesty's government deem it of importance 
 to the good relations which they are ever anxious should subsist and be 
 strengthoned betweeu the United States and Great Britain, that ft 
 friendly and complete understanding should be come to betweeu the 
 
200 
 
 GllNEHAL API'ENDIX. 
 
 11' 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 two jjovernmoiifs as to tli« extent of the rights which belon;^ to the cit- 
 izens of lii(^ ITnilril States an<l Her Majcst,v\s sniijects, resfu'ctively. 
 with rcfrreiiee to the (isheries on the coast of Her Majesty's possessions 
 in North America, and as to any other (|Ucstions between tin'sa wiiieii 
 alfetit the n latio::;-i of the United States toward tht)se possessions; and, 
 further, tliat as th<» consiih-ration (»f these jpiestions wouhl involve iii- 
 vesti;;ations of a somewhat comjiheated nature, and as it is v»'ry (h-sir- 
 abh; that tliey shouhl l)e thorouj^hly examim-*!, yon are dire<'ted l>y ]jor<l 
 (Jninville to propos(i t<j liie (loveinment of tlui United Statt's the ai>- 
 pointment (»f;t. joint liij^ii commission, which .^h.ili In; comi)osed ol nu'iu 
 hers to be named by ea<'h ;;overinnent ; shall hold its sessions at Wash- 
 ington ; and shall tr(v"t of and discuss the mode of settling the ilillei-tMit 
 (juestions whicii lia\e jaisen out of the tisheries, as well as ail those 
 which atfect tlie relations of the United States toward Her ^Majesty's 
 jiossessions in North America. 
 
 J ha\(! laid ,>our note b<'lbie the, President, who instructs me to «ay 
 tliut he shares with Her Majesty's government the appreciation of the 
 importance of a *iiendly and C(Un]»let«^ nnderstainling between tlu^ two 
 goveriiments witli reference' to the subj<'ct« 8j)ecially suggested lor the 
 consitleration of the proposed Joint higli comnussion, ami he fidly rec- 
 ogni/A s the friendly spirit which has |)romple<l tiie p'oposal. 
 
 The I'nsident is, liowevt'r, of the opinion that without the adjust- 
 ment of a class of (piestions m)t alluded to in your not**, the prop«)se«l 
 high comii'ission would tail to establish the i>ernwinent relations an«l the 
 sincere, sabslantia', and lasting friendship between the two gc.vern- 
 meiibs wiiich, in ejuimon with Her Majesty's government, lie desires 
 should jirevail. 
 
 Ii(^ thinks that the removal of the tlitfcrences which arose during the 
 rebellion in the I'nited States, and which have existi'd sinccthen, grow- 
 ing out of the acts committed by the several \essels whieh have giviMi 
 rhse to .lie. claims generically Un.)wn as the "Alabam.;" claims, wdl al.so 
 be essential to tlic restoration of cordial and amicable relations between 
 the two goveinmeiits. lie direcits me to .say that, slnaild Her Majesty's 
 govei'Mment icci'pl (his \iewofthis matter, and assent that this suh- 
 ject also may be treated of i»y the, jMopo-sed high (iommission, ami m ly 
 thus be put in tin- way of a linal am! amicable settlement, this (iovern- 
 nuMit will, with muci* jth'asnre. appoint iiigh commissionei's cm the part 
 of the United Slates, to meet tiiose who may be appointed on behalf ol 
 Jler liajesty'.s govertiment, and will siiare no ellbrts to .secure, at the 
 earli'si praeticabic moment, a Just and ami<'al>h^ arrangiunent of all the 
 •jiiestions wiiich now unfortunately stand in the way of an entir*^ and 
 abiding friomlship b"tween the two nations. 
 
 1 iiave the honor to . • wiih the highest consideratiivn, sir, your obe 
 dient servant, 
 
 HAMILTON FISII, 
 
 Sir Kdw.mm) Tiiounton, K. C. P.., cfr., il ,;., tic. 
 
 iJ. Sir Echcard Thornton to Mr. Fish. 
 
 Wa.shinoton, Fchniarji 1, 1«7L 
 
 Sii? : I hav<' the honor to ackm)wledge the re<'eipt of your note of the 
 ;iO;h ultimo, and to otfer you my siiurere and cordial thanks lor the 
 friendly and conciliatory spirir which jiervades it. 
 
GKNKKAL AI'i'ENDIX. 
 
 2fi7 
 
 () the cit 
 K'ctivoly. 
 >H.st'.s.si«ins 
 i'Ml wliicli 
 •lis; juid, 
 ivolvc ill- 
 
 vy ilcsir- 
 I l*y Lord 
 s llic ;ij). 
 
 <>r iiu'iii 
 
 at Wasli- 
 
 (iillV'jviit 
 
 ill! those 
 
 Maji'isty'.s 
 
 le to Hiiy 
 oil of the 
 
 thd two 
 (I for the 
 I'ully rec- 
 ti adjust 
 proposed 
 s and the 
 
 j;(»vei'ii- 
 e (lesirj's 
 
 iiviuf; the 
 en, j^ro V- 
 ve {jfiviMi 
 Will also 
 hetweeii 
 Majesty's 
 
 tilJM Mlll- 
 
 and ni ly 
 I (loveni- 
 tlie pan 
 l)ehalf ot 
 e, at the 
 jf all the 
 ttire and 
 
 our olte 
 
 FISH. 
 
 V,'ith !vieren(!e to that part of it in wliich yon stale tluit the l'resi«lent 
 thiidts that the removal of the, dillerenees whi<;h arose diuin;; the 
 rebellion in the United States, ami which have existed since then, {jnnv- 
 iu'^ out of the acts eoniniitted l»y the several vessels whieh have y;iveu 
 rise to the claims <jenerally kne.wn as the "Alaltama'' <!laims, will also 
 he essentiel to the restoration of cortl; il and ainii-able relations between 
 the two j;overninents, I have the h'/our to inform you that I have sub- 
 mitted to ICarl (Irain ille tlu^ opiiii <n thus expressed by the I'residcnt of 
 the United Slates, the I'liendliness of which, I be;,' you to belic\e, I 
 fully ai)preeiate. 
 
 I am now authorized by his lordsh'p to slate that it would k'\<' H«'i' 
 ^lajesty's ^j-overuim-nt i^Mcat saiisfacti»>n if the claims conun<!".!y known 
 l)y the name of the "Alabama" claiuss were submitted to the considera- 
 tion of thci Siuiie lii^jli commissioii by which Her Majesty's jnovt m- 
 meiit iiave proposed that llic onc^tions ndatin;;' to the l>ritish (tosses- 
 sions in Xorth America should be discussed, provich'd tliat a'l other 
 claims, both of IJr'lisli sui>jects and citizens of tin; I'liited Suites, 
 arisin;; oul of acts coiiiiiiitle(l during tl; recent civil war in this coiiii- 
 tiy. are similarly referred to the same lommission. The expressions 
 made us(>of in the namt'of the rresident in your alioveineiit ioiicd iiot(! 
 with rc^i'ard to the ••Alabama " eiaiiiis convince nui that the <io\('rii- 
 iiient ol the I'aited S>ates will considei* it of iiiiportaiice that these 
 causes of dispute between the two con nines should also, and at the same 
 time, "lie done away wirli, and that you wil! enable! me to convey to my 
 ;;()veriiiihut the assent of the Presiiieiit to tlu^ additi<»n which they thus 
 propose to the <Iuties of the hi^h commission, atid which <-annot tail to 
 make it nioie certain that its labors will lead to the remo\al of all dif- 
 ferences between the two countries, 
 
 I ha\e the honor to be, with the hi^^hest (U)nsideration, sir, your most 
 iiliedient, humble servant. 
 
 KDWAIM) TIIOILNTOX. 
 
 Hon. Hamilton 1-"ism, dc, dv.. dc. 
 
 , 1871. 
 te of the 
 for the 
 
 •I. Mr. Fi»lt to Sir Edirard I'liornton. 
 
 Dkpautmknt ok SI'ATK, 
 
 Wt(sltiiititini, Fchrittiry X 1 871. 
 
 ><Ul : 1 ha\(' the honor tu ackiiow le(|;;e tin* receipt of your note nt' the 
 i-l instant, in which yuii iufnim me that ,\('U are authorized by I'arl 
 (iianville to state that it would ;,'ive Her Majesty's lioveniiiieiit ;;reat 
 satisfaction if the claims commonly known by the nami> of the '•Alabama 
 claims"' weie submitted to ttie consideration (d'tlie satne liiyli c(unmission 
 liy which Her Majest\'s ;;()veriiiiieiit have proposed that the <|uest ions 
 lelatiiij,' to tlu' r.riti.;Ii possessions in North America should be discussed, 
 j»rovided that all other claims, both of I'.riti^h subjects and <'itizeiisof 
 llie rniied Stales, arisiiijj out of acts committed diiriii;,' tlit^ recent 
 civil war in this country, are similarly referred to the same(!oinmission. 
 
 I have laid your note befoni the President, and he has direet«'d me to 
 express (he satisfaction with which he has rec<'ived the intelliy«'i!ce that 
 l')arl (iranville has authorized you to state that Her Majesty's ^rovern- 
 iiuMil. has accepted the views of this (lovernment ast«) the disimsilion to 
 be made of the so-ealled •'Alabama claims." 
 
 He also directs ine to say with referentjc; to the remainder of your not' , 
 
'. M 
 
 2G8 
 
 GHNEKAL AI'l'KNDIX. 
 
 ■V *W,ttl ■ 
 
 m 
 
 t\ 
 
 that if tlunv l>e otlu r and iurtlier claims of British suhjocts, or of Aiiu-r- 
 ican citizens, ^Towinj;' out of acts coininittod durinf; tiic recent civil war 
 in this country, he assents to the ju'opriety of their reference to the sanic 
 hi^h coinuji.ssion ; but he suj^jjests that the hi;uh conunissionors shall 
 consider only such claims of tliis description as may be i>reseuted by the 
 jifovcrnnunts of [h(^ respective claimants at an early day, to be ajjreed 
 upon by the comniissionors. 
 
 1 have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obe- 
 dient servant, 
 
 HAMILTON KISII. 
 
 Sir l.nwAiii. Thornton, K. ('. 15., 
 
 »lr., ((•('., dr. 
 
 m 
 

 1I-AIMM)1.NT\IKNT OF THi: VMKlUt'AN rO^IMISSlONKKS AM) 
 
 SK.KKTAUY. 
 
 f. 
 
 Iff 
 
 11 
 
I [ -A I'POINTM KNTS 
 
 Dei'Autmknt of Statk, 
 
 \\<inhiufft<ni, Fchrmirif L'O, 1871. 
 
 Siu : Tlu* l'r<>si«l('iit liaviiifj, by /iimI with tin* iuhuM' aiitl consent of 
 tln' Sciiale, apiKiinh'd \(»ii to he a <*otiiniissioiu'r of tin- I'liitiMl States in 
 a.joint Itif^li (romniissioa between the United States and (Jicat IJiitain, 
 1 lierewitii inehise yoni' eoniniission. Yon will be {th-ased to inlorni tliis 
 Department of th<' receipt of it, and, siioidd it l»e accepted, of the name 
 of thi^ State or county in which \n\i were born. I also inclose a bhmk 
 form of th(^ oath of alU'^iianc**, which, in the e\ent of yunr acceptance, 
 you will please execuie and » -turn te, this Department f(»r Die. 
 I am, sir, your obedient M-rvaiit, 
 
 HAMILTON riSU. 
 
 Hon. JiojiKiM' i\ Sciiion(;k. 
 
 The same to the lion. E. H. IloAU, lh»n. Sami'EL Nelson, Hon. 
 (Jkoiuje U. Williams. 
 
 1. Holifit ('. Sclnticli, liiiviiiy; Ix-cii apimiiiti'd a (roinniisHionci' of tlir t'nitrd Siiif»>« in 
 .'I jiijiii ln<;li ('<)iniMiM>iiiii IxUmth thr I'liiii'd St:iti-H and (ii'rat Mrituiii, do .suli'iniily 
 KWi-ar that 1 liavi^ nrvcr volimtaiil.s Iiuiih' aims aliMill^t tlii' I'nilfil Stales Miiicc I liuvo 
 Ix'rii a cii i/i'ii llifi int; tliat I liaM' voliiiilaiilv ;^ivi-ii iin aid, iiiiiiiti'iiaiici-, <-i)iiiisi>|, or 
 ('ii('i>iira;;< iih'hl to pi'isDiis fii<;a;;i-d in arniol liusiility t liiii'tn ; tliat I liavc niMtiit'i' 
 sonj^iit imr ac<'i'|>trd. imr atlciii|it('<i to cxi'iciMi^ tlif luncti.>ii~ ol", any ollict- wliatiivt-r 
 under any antlioi'it,\ nr pri'tcnded anllmrity in iio.siility to liie IInil<'d Slatt-s; tliat I 
 tni\'' not virldrd a vidnntary ■^iipiiort to any |iri'trndrd >;ovcrnMicnt, aiitlioiity, power, 
 oi'conhtitntion, m itliin tli<- I 'mted Slut en. linKtiie or inimical i l)ereii>. Ami i do turtlier 
 NWear (oralliiio) tlntl, to tlic Ik-nI (d' niv kiiou led<;e and ul)ilit.\, 1 will support and 
 defend till' ( 'onsliiiii ion of tin- I jiited Sialt-H a;{.lill^<t all eiieinieH, loreiM^n and dinneslie, ; 
 tliat I will liear line t'litli and alle^iaiiee to (lie Name; that. 1 taki tliis 4)ldi<;ation 
 freely, witliont any iiiental leM-i-VMiion or pnrp'Mv' ot evasion ; and tliiif I will well and 
 (aitlitiilK di.H('liaix<' >'■<' dm >> s ot (lie olHee (,,i w ti.di i iiii aliout to enter : so help mo 
 (i.td. 
 
 Sworn to uiul Niib.HcrilKHl htdoif me this dav <>f . 
 
 APPOINTMIINT OK SIXKKTAKY. 
 
 KxE<;u'nvE Mansion, 
 Wasliiiitjtoti, FeOtuarif 14, 1871. 
 
 To J. C. BANruni T Davis, Ksq.. 
 
 AnHi,staitt )>i<rr(Uity «>/' Stale : 
 Yon are hereby desi;;nale«l atid tliii'cted to perform the <liities of sec- 
 retaiy oi' tiie itoiiimissioners on lieiialtol the ('nited States in the joint 
 hi^h conimisi^ion, to meet in U astiiii^ton lor the. consideration ol the 
 •jnestious i»cMidin{^ between the United Stalcfi and Great Ibitain. 
 
 U. S. tiKANT. 
 
272 
 
 GENKRAL APPENDIX 
 
 ACCEPTAXCKS OF APPOINTMENTS. 
 
 • Washington, February 25, 1871. 
 
 Sir : I have recoived the commission as coiuinissioiier of the joint 
 high commission between the United States and Great Britain, and 
 hereby accept the same. I was born in the county of Washington, 
 State of New York. 
 I liei^with inclose the oath of office for your Department. 
 I am, sir, your oljedient servant, 
 
 SAMUEL NELSON. 
 Hon. Hamilton Fish, 
 
 Secretary of IState. 
 
 Washington, February 25, 1871. 
 
 Sir : Having signified my acceptance of tlie appointment to tlie duties 
 of commissioner in tlie joint liigh i'.ommission i)etween the United 
 States and CJreat Britain, which tlie I 'resident lias been i)leasc<l to 
 confer on me, I herewith inclose tin* oathof ollice and allegianc<', which 
 I have taken in the form recpiired by law. 
 
 I liave also to inform you that I was born in the State of Ohio. 
 
 I liave the honor to be, verv respectfullv, vour ()be<lie!it servant, 
 
 JiOliEirr C.SCHENCK. 
 Hon. Hamilton Fish, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 Washington, March 1, 1871. 
 Sir : r have the honor to acknowledge the: receipt frotn the Depart 
 meut of State (»f ii commission from the President, apjiointing me "to 
 be a commissioner of the I'liited States in u Joint high (U)mmissi(m 
 between the Inited States and (Jreat Ibitain," and to inform you that 
 1 accept the same. I haxf taken and subs(*ribed the re<piisite oath, 
 whi<^h has Iteeii duly certiiii-d, and is inclosed herewith. 1 was born in 
 Concord, in the eommonwealth of Massa<;husetts. 
 
 I am. sii', veiv reoeetlidlv. \<)Mr obedient servant, 
 
 ElilONEZIOim. HO A If. 
 lion. Hamilton Fish. 
 
 Secretary oj state. 
 
 li 
 i 
 
 Mi 
 
 Washington, March 1, 1H71. 
 Sir : I have tlu honor tn ueknowlciig* the reeeipt tioni you of a com- 
 mission i'rom the l*resi<lenl iis one of tlie commissioners in ajoinr high 
 commission between the I nif«'il States and (Jreat Britain, and accept 
 the appointment. I am a native of the State of New York. 
 Y»»urs, \erv truiv. 
 
 (11:0. H. WILLIAMS. 
 
 Hon. Hamilton I-'ish, 
 
 Secretfcry of State, ]Va.iliiuytou, 1), (J, 
 
Ill -INSTKKTIONS TO THi-: AMKItK AN COMMISSION!: KS. 
 
 18 u 
 
i 
 
 i 
 
 1^ 
 
 %^ 
 
iii.-i.\sTia;aii?Ns to thk amkkican commissiunkiis. 
 
 Mr. Fish to (ifuiml Sdunvk. 
 
 Dkpaimmknt of Statk, 
 
 WiLshiiHiloii, Frill nil I/I \l'Jj |S7I. 
 
 Siu: Yom- Iii^li cliiniii'tiT iind cxiHTiciico in piiUlic Mlljiii's, ;iii<l tin- 
 t';iiiiiliaiit,v wliicli vniir Un\ix servicer iiihIci- tlif l-'cilcinl (Jovcrninciit 
 li;i.s ;ni\ I'll you of till' (iiicsf ions to 1)(' (lisciisscd and t riMicd l»y IIh- Joint 
 coniniission, of wliicl! von IniVf Itcini appointed n nn'mln-i', sfcin to 
 I'cinlcr nnnccossaiy any instrnctions upon tin- (pu'slions that will coinc 
 uinlcr the considciation of that lM»dy. 
 
 Aiu)th('r consideration, nnne pci'sonal to llic nrnh'isijincd, t'orliids nn 
 attempt on his pait to <;ive instructions to his associates on tlie com 
 mission. 
 
 Von will receive herewitli a confidential nieanu'andnm or lniel, em 
 Itodyiii;;' a rclercnce to corr('S|iond('nce III" this Department, and to the 
 history ofseveia! of the questions which may l»e discussed l>y the cnm 
 mission, vi/, : 
 
 I. Tlu' fisheries. 
 
 II. The iia\iL;alion of the Saint liawreiice. 
 
 III. Iicciprocal trade hevueeii the I'nited Slates ami the Doaiiiiiuu ol 
 ('anada. 
 
 I\'. X(U'thw('sr water Itonndary and the ishind ot S;iu .liian. 
 
 \'. The claims of the (Jniteil Stales a;;ainst <lrcal roilain on acionni 
 of acts (MMuinil ted i»y rehel cruisers. 
 
 \'l. Claims of llritish siihjecls against the I'nited States for losses 
 and injuries a'isin;^- cmt of acts committed during tin' recent civil war 
 ill th<' I'nited States. 
 
 It is hoped that this im>inoi:indum. which has heeti |uepaied in this 
 hepaitmeiil, may aid you ity its references in the coiisnleration of the 
 several «|iiestions on which it treats. 
 
 The President commits the discussion and treatment of llie several 
 ipiestions l(» thejoint discretiim of yourself and ,\our associates. 
 
 The siltin.ys (»!' the tMunmission liein;.;' in this city, yu'i v ill ha\e t he 
 iippoilunity, of which he expects you to a\ail yourself, ol' consultiiifi 
 with him from time to time, and u|ion any points in which you may 
 have serious (loul)ts, and you can also cautiously and conlideii! ially 
 ascertain the views and opiii'ons of SenatfU's, to whiun, in case your 
 iiej.;dtiations shall result in a treaty or c<Hi\-eiitioii. that result must he 
 siiluuittcd for their constit uliimal advice and consent. 
 
 One point not referred to in the accompaiiyin;;' im luoranduni will 
 prohalily i>e luiMijiht to the consideration of the -loint ( 'ommissinn. viz : 
 SouH' agreement l)et ween the two ( I oxen im cuts dellniii;^' their respective 
 li.U'hls and duties as neutrals in «'ase the oth -r (iovernment he en;^a^('d 
 ill war with a third power. 
 
 It is enou;nh that the suhje(tt he indica.ed an<' your attenticui to it 
 asked as oiw. of the important (lucstions that may 'iij^a.ne the considera- 
 tiuuM of tliu cuintiiissioii. 
 
 
27r, 
 
 (JKNKKAL AI'I'KNDIX. 
 
 Tlu' rr«'sit]«'iit liopj's tliiit wliiih'xcr principles iiiii.v Im- csliililiNlicd m 
 rcct>;>iii/.c(l in (foiiiicctioii Willi this snhii-rt Mliall lie ('(insidiMcd cipially 
 itppliriiMc to tile pfiiti*! ciAt'inl Itv tlif lute civil Wiir in iIun counii \ 
 iind tlic I'utnrc. 
 
 I have the lionor to he, sir, void- oheilient serviiiit, 
 
 llA.Mll/rON KISII. 
 
 lion. KoMK.IM ('. S< IIKNCK. 
 
 (The same to each ineinlter of the commission.) 
 
 •■1 
 
 iHcloniin, 
 
 Conlidential iiiemoiaiMlnni lor the use of the < 'ummissioiieis on the 
 part of the rniled Stales in the American iiiitisit .luint IIi;;h ('onimis 
 sion, \\'ashiii;^ton, 1S7I : 
 
 I, ConcspondeiH'e between Mr. I-'ish ami Sir l'](lwar<l Thornton pn 
 Uiniiiid'ji to tin? lie^olialioli. (For this corresponileiice see (Oi/r, 
 |iaye L'ti.'J ct srif,) 
 11. The lislieries, jutsf, pa^i'e L'TT. 
 III. Navigation of the Saint Lawicnce, jiost, paj^e '_'>*!). 
 1\'. K*ecipr(H!al trad*' Iietween the Tnilfd Stales and tiie Dominion <if 
 Canada, jtosl, pa.!;e L'I»L'. 
 \ . Northwest water honndar.v and the island ol San .liian, /io.v/. 
 
 pa^e ."><»;. 
 \ I. The ( laims oi' the I'niteil Stales a;;ainsl (I real llrilain on accouiil 
 of acts committed liy rebel cinisers, /;(*,s7, paj^c 'M'.K 
 \'ll. <"laimsof iJritish snitjects a;;ain-<t the I 'iiited Stales for losses and 
 injni ies arisiii;^ ((111 of acts ctaiimilled dnriny the recent civil 
 war in the I'nited States, /><>«/, i)ay:«^ .'{(»-. 
 
S (MdlllUA 
 
 risii. 
 
 'IS oil the 
 I Coiiiiiiis 
 
 •iitoii i>n 
 (• s»'«' (llllr. 
 
 lulliioli ol 
 
 nan, ito.sl, 
 
 i\\ accuiiiil 
 
 losses jiliil 
 'CClil civil 
 
 3^§c 
 
 "4, 
 
 ^ 
 
 r/rfVV/ii 
 
 v«ir/< 
 
 /^ 
 
 U-->*^-" 
 
 The .i 
 
 K-^iii 
 
 m 
 
• 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 ■-lli£ 
 
 |50 '""^= 
 
 ♦« IIIM 
 
 '■' m 
 
 2.5 
 
 12.2 
 
 2.0 
 
 14 IIM.6 
 
 V] 
 
 <^ 
 
 /}. 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 93 
 
 '■•>. 
 
 ^T^ 
 
 *# 
 
 ^> 
 
 %>*' ,.-■'' 
 
 '/ 
 
 /S^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WrST MAIN STREET 
 
 W(:PiTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 
 iV 
 
 \\ 
 
 % 
 
 .V 
 
 
 o^ 
 
 >> 
 
 rv^ 
 
 '%^ 
 

 £?< 
 
Tlie American flBliermen hiive tlie rifibt t0 take (Ish of every kind on the coMts colored that . 
 
 They liavc nlso llie riglit bi dry and ciir'.* ftili in (lie unsettled bays, Imrbora, and creeks of the cooat colored thus 
 
 (t Is claimed tliat the French flsbermun have also the right to take fish on the coast colored thua 
 
 The United Slatpshav 
 Dominions in America no 
 of shelter and repairing d 
 be necessary to prevent tl 
 
w |i > w 
 
 IX > 
 
 "Z'W^- A-'/; rr 
 
 Mt<)<)l W«l 
 
 
 ' « ^/ r/ 
 
 _. .1 The United StntPS hare reimnnml the lllicrty to inke. flrj', or niro flsh within Ihrop marine milfR of the crafts, Imvs, orockf, or hnrliors of the nrillsli 
 ■I Dominiimg in Americn not inoliiiK'tl in the above liniils ; Itnt the privilege is reseri-etl to AmcrioHn flHltrmen tn rntei- snrli Iihvr nr InirlmrK for the purpoae 
 S^ of slielter and repairing damiviTL's there, of piircliHsIng wood, ami of olttalnInK water, and for no other pnrpoao wlirttever, uiKlcr sneli resirirtlons iis may 
 I be necessary to prevent them fnim loklng, drying, or curing flsh therein, oriu any other inunner whatever abusing the privileges reserved to them. 
 
h^ 
 
 II 
 
 r( 
 
 ft 
 tl 
 ill 
 tl 
 
 tl 
 a 
 
 tc 
 tl 
 
 01 
 
 w 
 
 S( 
 
 w 
 
 tl 
 
 U 
 1> 
 
 li^ 
 ct 
 
 St 
 
 cl 
 
 Q 
 N 
 
 >^ 
 P 
 
CONFIDENTIAL MEMnRAXnUM FOR THE USE OF THE COMMISSIONERS 0\ THE 
 PART OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE AMERtCAX-RRITISH JOINT HIGH 
 COMMISSION, WASHINIiTON, 11171. 
 
 [l.-THE FISHERII'X 
 
 1. RIGHTS AS DEFINED BY TREATY. 
 
 Tlio (!Oiivent:ioii of 1818, luu-einafter reterrod to, -^ives to Aiuoricaii 
 tislieiiiien — 
 
 1. Tlic, riylit, ill cojiimon with British lishcrmiMi, to _//.s7( witliin thicc 
 miu'iiic iiiiU's of tlie Isiiul on all the coasts markod red, blue, and yell-ow, 
 resi)eetively, on the annexed nia]). 
 
 L*. Prior to the negotiation of the treaty of 1818, France had s«>cnred 
 for her lishernien, by treaty with Great JJritain, a similar ri}>ht on all 
 the coasts marked led. Hence it follows that the Americran lishermen, 
 as to that portion of the coast, enjoy the rijjfht to fisk in coirnnon with 
 the French as well as the British tishermen. 
 
 3. The a<hlitional ri<>ht as to the coast marked blue to land, and dry, 
 and care fish, so lonj>' as the (;oast is unsettled. 
 
 I As to this rijjiht, it is to be observed that it is said to be important as to 
 the (;()d-lisheries, but unimportant as to the mackerel-fisheries. The cod 
 are usually si)lit and dried on sluu-e; the mackerel are cured on board.] 
 
 1. The "privile.<>e" is also reserved to the x\.nu>ricau fishernu'ii to en- 
 ter the British North American bays or harbors, iu)t iiujluded within 
 the limits of coast so marked in colors, "for the i)nrp()se of shelter and 
 of repairinj;- damages therein, of i)urchasin<j wood, and of obtaining 
 water, and for no other purpose whati^ver.'' 
 
 [The United States claim that this is a jtriftlcf/e to their lishing-ves- 
 sels to go in and out of those bays and harbors for the pnrposes named 
 without the custom-honse formalities, and is not to be confounde«l with 
 the rifjht which all vessels which bear the tlagof tlus United States have 
 to enter the open British ports for the purijosc^ of trade, or any other 
 purpose lawful under the customs of nations. | 
 
 o. Except as above defined, the United States renounce fonner the 
 liberty to tike, dry, or cure fish within thr<>e marine miles of any of the 
 coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of the British doniinions in America. 
 
 •2. CHAUAC'TER OF THE FISHERIES. 
 
 The fisheries are known as the deep-sea and the in-fihore fisheries. 
 
 The latter are princii)ally for herring and mackerel ; atul are under- 
 stood to have been the princi|)al cause of the trouble. The former in- 
 clude, aud iu fact maiuly consist of, the cod and halibut fisheries. 
 
 3. VALUE OF THE BRITISH COLONIAL MARINE FISHERIES. 
 
 The value of these fisheries, as given in the latest accessible returns, is — 
 
 Quebec '. $1, 010, 240 46 
 
 New Brunswick 038, 570 00 
 
 Nova Scotia 2, 501, 507 00 
 
 Newfoundland 7, 005, 807 40 
 
 Prince Edward Island 109, 580 00 
 
 Magdalen Islands 71, 356 00 
 
 Total 11,433,067 00 
 
 '>i-''?i 
 .''.'*1 
 
 55.3 
 
278 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 vl 
 
 H 
 
 Tlio tislioiiosof NewtbmKlliind arc prii cipally docp-soa lishoiioy, I'lic 
 consul at iralifax giv "s it as lii ■. opinion tliat "of tiic agjircgato prod- 
 ucts of tlic whole colonial lislicries, the inshore iishcrics — wliicli arc 
 l>ursiic(l chietlj' for TnacUcrcl and hcrriny — constitute the sn)aller jtor 
 tion ; i)robably not more than one-fourth of the whole." 
 
 4. VALUE OF THE AMEllICAN FISIIEUIES. 
 
 Mw Mortinu'r ,Iackson, the consul at Halifax, says: "The number of 
 Anieii(!an hshinj;- vessels en,i;aj;ed in tiie < eei)-sea (isheries oil" the coasts 
 of the IJritish North American provinces is, as near as can be estimated, 
 about 1,400, with an agj,'regate tonna<;(' of nearly 10(),000 tons, employ- 
 inji' about 17,000 men. They i)ursue the fisheries on the banks of S'ew- 
 foundland, in the (luHof Saint Lawrence, and on the wester:; banks. On 
 thebaidvs the lisheries are pursued fori'od aiul halil)ut, and in tlu' (rulf of 
 Saint Lawi'en(!e principally for mackerel. The capital employed in these 
 lisheries is estimated at between eight and nine millions. The aggregate 
 annual yield is about seven millions of dollars. Tlie deep-sea tislieries 
 are exclusive of the inshore lisheries, which were alone affected by the 
 abrogation of the reciprocity treaty. During the existence of that 
 treaty, and subsetpiently, to a limited extent, under tiie li(!ense system, 
 the inshore fisheries were pursued by our fishermen chielly for mackerel. 
 T/ic ([Huutlty HO tdJcen, hoicci'cr, did not exceed, on an average, in auij one 
 year, more than one-fourth of the whole eateh of that deneription (f Jish.'" 
 {M<(nafieript dl.spdteh No. .'597, January 23, 1871. 
 
 i^Ir. E. n. Derby, of Uoston, says : " The fisheries of the State of 
 Massachusetts for whale, cod, mackerel, and herring produce yearly 
 about twelve millions of <lollars, of whicii less than a sixth are usually 
 drawn from our fisheries in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence." (Manuscript 
 Review of the Ottawa Review of the Presidenfs Mes.sage.) 
 
 f). JLVKKETS FOR CANADLVN FISH. 
 
 -f * 
 
 I' 
 
 The Newfoundland-cured codfish find a large market in Spain, Portu- 
 gal, the Mediterranean, South America, and the West Indies. 
 
 With that exception, the United States furnish the best market. This 
 market, especially as to nuickerel, has not been injured by the abroga- 
 tion of the reciprocity treaty. 
 
 " It was fully demonstrated, during the existence of the reciprocity 
 treaty, that the .admission of American fishing-vessels to a common 
 participation in the privileges accorded to British vessels, instead of 
 being injurious, was, on the whole, beneficial to the interests of the 
 provincial fishermen." (Manuscript report of the consul at Halifax, Jan- 
 Mary 23, 1871.) 
 
 6. DIPLOMATIC HISTORY. 
 
 The iu-shore fisheries were aciiuired to Great Britain by the treaty 
 of Paris, (1703,) which terminated the French dominion on this conti- 
 nent, and were enjoyed from that time till the lievolution by the inhab- 
 itants of the original thirteen States in common with the other inhabi- 
 tants of the British empire. 
 In the negotiations preceding the treaty of '83, an attempt was made 
 to induce the American commissions to give up the fisheries, 
 which John Adams met by saying, "I will never put my hand 
 to any article without satisfaction about tUo fisheries." Finding the 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 279 
 
 1H13- 11. 
 
 coinmissioiiors firm on this question, the pro^'isional articles were signed 
 November ,'{0, 1 7<SU, and 
 
 "The (U'liiiitiNc treaty of peace" was signed, of whieli the M article 
 (being identical with Article HI of the [jrovisional article) read i;,xs,pt. ^ 
 thns: 
 
 AUTICLK III. 
 
 It is iijii't'cil tlijit tlio poDplc of tlio ITiiitcd Stafi's sliiill coiitiinK' to I'li.joy iiiiinolcstcil 
 I lie ii;>lif to take lisli of every kind on tin; Gnind Bank, and on all the other liaiiks of 
 Newfoundland ; also in the Gulf of Saint Lawreiiei^, ami at all other places in the sea 
 where tin' iiilialdlants of l)ot]i countries usvA at any time heretofore to lish ; and also 
 that the inhaliitants of tho United States shall liave lil)erty to take (ish of every kind 
 on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British lisliermen shall use. (hut not to 
 dry or cure the same on that island ;) and also on tlu^ coasts, hays, and creeks of all 
 otlier of IMs Biilannic Majesty's (h)ininions in America; and that the Anieriran lislier- 
 men shall lia\(' lilierty to ilry and cure lish in any of tin; unsettled hays, harhors, and 
 creeks of Nova Scoria, Maj^dahiii Islands, and I>al)rador, so lourr as the same .shall re- 
 main unsettled ; but so soon as tin; same, or either of tluMii, shall lie settled, it shall not 
 1)0 lawful Uti the said lisliermen to dry or cure lish at ^uch settleuieut, witliout a previous 
 a,^rcem»'nt for that purpose with the inlmbitauts, j)roprietors, or possessors of the 
 jfround. 
 
 The fisheries were among the questions discussed by the comuiis- 
 .sioners for negotiating the treaty of peace that closed the war of 
 1812. The r^nited States commissioners claimed that the treaty 
 of 178;j conferred no new rights upon the United States; that it was an 
 agreement as to a division of property which took place on the division 
 ot the British em[)ire after the success of the American llevolution, and 
 was not ill that resi)ect abrogated by war. The Briti.sh commissioners, 
 on the other hand, held that, while the treaty of 1783 recognized the 
 right ot the United States to the deep-sea fisheries, it conferred privileges 
 as to the inshore fisheries and the use of the shores whicii were lost by 
 a declaration of war. The parties being unable to agree, {see Am. St. 
 Pap., For. ReL, vol. 3, pages 732 et seq.) 
 
 The treaty of Ghent was concluded without allusion to the 
 fisheries. 
 
 Lord Bathurst instructed the governor of Newfoundland that " on 
 the declaration of war by the American Government, and the hi... .lum, i- 
 consequent abrogation of the then existing treaties, the United States 
 tbrfeited, with respect to the fisheries, those privileges which are purely 
 conventional; ami, as tiiey have uot been renewed by stipulation in 
 the present treaty, the subjects of the United States can have no pre- 
 tense to any right to fish within the British jurisdiction, or to u.se the 
 British territory for purposes connected with the fisheries." [Revieic 
 of Presi(leHt\>i Alessagc, Ottmca, December, 1870.) 
 
 This position resulted in a long correspondence between Mr. John 
 (iuiney Adams and Lord Bathurst, which ended by the British mv lu 
 government adhering to its position. The corre.spondence may be 
 found in Foreign Relations, vol. 4, page 352 et seq. 
 
 Mr. Bagot, British minister at Washington, reasserting Lord Bath- 
 urst's construction of the treaty of 1783, and of the eft'ect of ihh;, sov. 27. 
 the war, proposed a new arrangement, upon the basis of a concession 
 of the right to cu''e fish on certain coasts, to fish within British limits 
 oil certain coasts, and of a renunciation of the right to fish within those 
 limits on all other coasts. The first proposition made was not an 
 acceptable one. 
 
 Another proposition was made, which, although not accepted, ap- 
 pears to have been the basis of the subsequent arrangement. ner. 31 
 [lb., page 305 et seq.) 
 
 Instructions having been issued by Great Britain to seize foreign 
 vessels fishing or at anchor in any of the harbors or creeks 1817, Aug. ». 
 
 1814, Pec. M. 
 
 
) 'Pi: 
 
 280 
 
 GENERAL APPENLIX. 
 
 in her ^Majesty's British North American possessions, or within their 
 ujaritinie Jnrisdiction, and send them to Halifax lor adjudieation, sev- 
 eral vessels wore seized, and information officially commnnicated to 
 this Government, {lb., piuje 37*.).) 
 
 Mr. Galhitin, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to 
 HiH Maviia. France, and Afr. Knsh, envoy extraordinary and minister plen 
 i])otentiary to Great Britain, were then empowered " to aj^ree, treat, 
 consult, and nej^otiate, of and concerning the j^eneral connnerce be- 
 tween the United States and Great Britain and its d<tminions or depend- 
 encies, and such other matters and subjects interestiii,u' to th»' two na 
 tions as may be given to tliem in charge, untl to conclude and sign a 
 treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, touching the i)remises.'* 
 (lb., page 372.) 
 
 Their instructions related to the prolongation of the treaty of com- 
 mence of LSI"), (8 Stat, at Large, --*8;) to the comment', and intercourse 
 with the British colonies in tlie West Indies and North America ; to in- 
 demnity to the owners of slaves carried away after the ratitication of 
 the treaty of Ghent; to the boundary -line between the United States 
 and the British possessions; and to the lisheries, {lb., pages .'^71-2.) 
 
 They arranged for all these points, except the commerce with the col- 
 onies, in which the British ministry of that day were r.ot disposed to 
 allow the United States to share, {lb., page .'380.) 
 
 At the third conference of the commmissioners the American plen- 
 sepiember 17. ipotcutiaries submitted their projxtsed articles, among which 
 was the following relating to the fisheries: 
 
 . J J 
 
 '•r 
 
 
 AUTICLK A*. 
 
 Whereas diflfcrcnccs h.avo arisen i'(!Spectiii<; tlic liberty claimed liy the United Stato 
 for the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, and (Mire tisli on certain coasts, buys, harbors, 
 and creeks of His liritanuic Majesty's dominions in America, it is a^iri'cd i»et\veen the 
 bij^h eontractln<4- parties that tin; inhabitants of the said irnited States nhaH nnitiuiic In 
 enjoy, H>iim'!eMyd,foren'r, the liberty to take fish f)f every kind on that part of the .south- 
 ern coast of Newfonndland wliich extends from Cape Kay to the lianntaii Islands, and 
 the western and northern coast of Newfonndlaml from tin; said Cape Kay toQnirpcm 
 Island, on the Ma<j;dalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from 
 Mount .Joli, on t\\v. southern coast of Labrador, to and llironj^h tlie Straits ui' "'^lleisle. 
 and thence northwardly indednitely alonj; the coast ; and that the American fisiiermen 
 shall also have liberty, forever, to dry and cure lish in any of the unsettled bays, 
 harbors, and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland, here above 
 described, of the Magdalen Islands, and of Labrador, as here ahoir described ; but so soon 
 as the same, or either of them, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fisher- 
 men to dry or cure lish at such settlement without previous a<;reenu!nt for tlutl purpose 
 with the inliabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the <;round ; and the I'nited States 
 hereby renounce any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by tin; inhabitants thereof 
 to take, dry, or cure lish on or within three ni.arine miles of any of the coasts, bays, 
 creekf^, and h.arbora of His Brit.anuic Majesty's dominions in America not included 
 within the above-mentioned limits : Provided, hoieever, That the American tishermeii 
 shall be adnntted to enter such bays and h.arbora for the purpose only of ohtatniny shel- 
 ter, wood, water, and bait, hut under such restrictions as may l>e neeesmry to prevent their dry- 
 ing or curing lish therein, or in any other manner abusing tlm jmvilegc hereby reserved 
 to them. 
 
 At the fifth conference the British plenipotentiaries presented a 
 counter project, of which the part relating to^the fisheries was 
 in the following language : 
 
 m». oci. 6. 
 
 Article A. 
 
 It is Jigreed that the inhabitants of the United States shall h.ave liberty to take tish 
 of every kind on that part of the western coast of Newfoundland which extends from 
 
 * The words iu italics were erased as the article was finally agreed to, and, in most 
 cases, other words substituted in their places. (See post.) 
 
 i^t 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX'. 
 
 281 
 
 treat. 
 
 Capo l?iiy to till' (^iiirpoii IslaiulH, aiid on tlutf ])ait of tlif soiitlicrn and fastiTii coast 
 of Laliiailof wliicli rxti'iiilM from .Mount .loli to lliinlin!;(lon ts|;iiiils, And it !•< fnitlicr 
 afircfd that the lishcinn'n of tlw I'nitcd Stati's shall have lilirriy to dry .ind cnic lisli 
 
 af^rctMi iinir nic nsncinnMi oi rnc i nitcci rsiaics snaii nave luirriy lu (uy and ciiic nsii 
 in any of the nnsctlh-d hays, haihors, ami crt'tdis of ihr said sontli ami casl coast ol 
 Labrador, so louj;- as the same shall remain niiscltlcd ; hnt as soon a-^ the same, or any 
 part of thcni. shall he settled, it shall not he lawfnl for the saiil lishermen to tlry or 
 euro tish without a previons aj;rceii\ent for that pni'pose with the inhaliitants. proprie- 
 
 l)rivile;;e of carryiiiii on tvade with any of Ilis Miitannic Majesty's sithji-cts residinjy 
 within the limits hercinhcfore assii;ned to the use of the lislicrmi n of the Ignited States 
 for any of the pnrjioscs aforesaid. 
 
 Aiwl in order the inort^ effcctnall.v to j^uard aijainst sniii,ir;ilin}i, it shall i\ot 1>e lawfnl 
 for tli(5 vessels of till- United States en<ja^ed in the said lislu'i'y to have on hoard an.v 
 goods, wares, or merchandise whatever, (ixeejit sn(di as nni.y lie necessary foi' the prose- 
 cution <if the lishei'y or the snjiport of' the fishermen while engaj;ed liiereiii.or in the 
 ]»rosecntion of their voyages to and from the said fisliing-grotinds. And any \e>isel ot 
 the I'nited Mates wliicl; shall contravene this regulation may lie seized, condemned, 
 and conliscated, together with her cargo. 
 
 The Amciican ?^lenii)otciitiaries rcpli«'(l to this as fonows; 
 
 Hw. o.-i. r 
 
 FISHERIES. 
 
 Tlic Amci'ican ]denipot(!ntiarics an^ not autliori/.ed by tlieir instrnetions to .assent to 
 any article on that suhject which shall not secure to the inhabitants of the I'nited 
 States the liberty of taking lisIi of e\'erv kind on the southern coast of Newfoundland 
 from Cape Ray to the J'anu^a Islands, and on the coasts, bays, harhois, and creiks t'roni 
 Mount .loIi on the southern ('Odst of Labrador to and through the Straits of Helleisle, 
 and thence northwariUy imh'tinitely along the coast, and also the libeity of drying and 
 curing lish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Labrador, and of the 
 southein coast of Newfoundland, as above desiuibed, with the proviso respect iiig such 
 of the said bays, harliors, and creeks as may be settled. 
 
 The lilieity of taking lish within rivers is not asked. A positive clause to except 
 thoni is unnecessary, unless it be intended to compndiend nmh'r that name waters 
 which might otherwises be considered as bii.\s or creeks. Whatever extent oi lishiug- 
 ground may be set-urcd to xVnu'rican lishermen, the American plenipotcmtiarii'.- ait; not 
 prepared to accejit it on a teimre or on conditions dilferent from those, on whii h tlie 
 whole has heretofore been held. Their instrnetions did not anticipatt; that any new 
 terms or restrictions would bo ainiexed, as none wore suggested in the proposals made 
 by Mr. IJagot to the American Government. The clauses forbidding the spreading of 
 nets, and making vessids liable to conlisL'ation in case any articles nor wanted fir car- 
 rving on tins llsher.v should lie fouiul on boar. I, are of that description, and would expose 
 the tislierinen to endless vexations. 
 
 At the sixth conference the American plenipotentiaries dechired that 
 they could not afjree to tlie article on the fisheries broiij-ht for- 
 ward by the British plenipotentiaries at the preceding confer- 
 ence, {lb., page 302.) 
 
 The British plenii)otentiarie.s presented the following article as to the 
 fisheries : oct. is. 
 
 liH, Oct. (I. 
 
 m 
 
282 
 
 GENERAL Ari'EXDIX. 
 
 
 ' !|1 
 
 AuTici.i: A.* 
 
 Wlii'icus (linci'incrs Imvc iirisi'ii rcsjiccliiiL; llic lihcily clMiuiril liy tlir I'liitiMl States 
 lur 111!' iiiiiiiliii.'iiits llirrcid'tii liikc, dry, niiil ciiri- lisli on (•crtiiiii roiist'^, li^ys, liiiihors, 
 ;iih1 cifiks oT His JSiiliiiniic Miijcsly's (loiniuioiis in Aiucricii : 
 
 It is ii^^iccd iM'twi'cii tilt' iiij^ii fdiitrfictiiij;' parties tliiit tlie inliiiltit.iiilH ut liio said 
 I'nited Slates . ■(/(((// liair,J'orcni', in coinmoii iritli titr niihJcdH of Iliii Urildniiir Mdjiuli/, (lie 
 libeily Id lal\e lisli nl' every iiiiid tin that part of tiii' soiitlieni enast •»!' Xewlonndluntl 
 wiiieii exleiids tioni iJape If.ay to llie lianiea Islands; on the western and nortliei'ii 
 coast (>r New lonndland, from tlit; said (Ja|ie J{ay to the (^iiirpoii Islands; on Ihf nhuiTH 
 of tlie .Ma;;(lalen Islainls, and also on the eoasts, hays, harhois, and ereeUs from Moniit 
 .J(ili,on ihe soiiihern coast of Lalirador, to ami tliron;;h the iStiails of licllcisle; and 
 thence noilhw ardly, indelinitely, alonj; Ihe ('oast, irilliiiKl i)rvjml'nx,.bLiij:.i>'Vi'}{'>iiHU{\l 
 llic r.rchi^in- rijjliln o/' llic Jliclsini linij Coiiqxuin ; and that the American lisliernieii shall 
 also liave liherl,\ . foie\-er, to dry and enre lisli in any of the nnsettled l>ays. harliors, 
 and creeUs of liic sonlhern part of I lie coast of Newt'oiiniUand, here aliii\(! doscril)etl, 
 nud uf lli( a)((sl oi' liahiad;ir; Init so soon as the same, or ««// />o/7ii>/( //lovi;/', siiall bo 
 siitth^l, il shall not he lawful for tin! said lisliernieii to dry or cure lish at such iiurlioit 
 •sr> ,s(///((/ willidiii previous aureemeiit for hiicIi purpose with the inhahilants, proprie- 
 tors, or possessors of tlie jfrontnl. 
 
 And the I'nited .Slates lieichy ri!iiL)iiiice,./iL»rt'r('r, any liberty heretofore iMiJoytMl or 
 claimed by tlu^ inliahitaiits then^of lo take, ilry, <>i' curi! lisli uxi or within three iiiariiio 
 miles of any of Ihe coasts, hays, creeks, or harbors of His niitannie Majesty's doiiiir- 
 ioiis in America not included within tin; iiho\e-mentioned limits : Provided, however, 
 That the American risherinen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the 
 piir|>ose ol' ulicUcr. (iiid of wjunniitj (lainitiic^ tlicniii, of piircltitxiiii/ wood and ohiahiiiuj 
 wutt:i\ itiid for no oilier jjitrixiKf wliiitvrcr. Jlnl llicij nIiiiII lir nndtr '<iich n':<lrirlionK an may 
 br »(■(■( .SMH)/ /() pnrtnl their lalimj, dryiiifj;, or curing lish tlieruiii, or in any other iiiaiiiier 
 n'holerer abnsiiij;- t\u' ]tririliijcH hereby reserved to them. 
 
 This article was attceptetl by the Aiin'iicaii coiniui.ssionci's, and is 
 idt'iitieal witii arlicU^ iucorponitt'd in the convention. (8 Shit, at Lanje, 
 jxti/e 1' 18.) 
 
 The t'oinparison of this i'.rticle witli tlie article siibtnitled by the 
 Aiiierieau coniinissioiK-rs, on the 17th of September, shows 
 that the only material change made, so far as the present dis- 
 cussion is eoneeriied, was in the exclusion of the word "/ai//." It is 
 represented tiiat the " bait" referred to in the treaty must Inive been 
 bait lor "{'(»r/," which were eaujiht in those waters, as the mackerel- 
 lisheries in tliose waters did not bej>in till several years al'ter that time. 
 It was, therefore, within the letter and s[>irit of the cjonveiition to deny 
 to American lishermen the right to cdteli that bait in those waters. 
 The favorite bait for the nuuikerel is sai<l to be caiiglit on! v off the coast of 
 
 HllP. .lime II. 
 
 i, 
 
 je, and not to be found in Canadian waters. It thi.s is correct, it 
 could not have been intended to deny to our fishermen the right to^)»r- 
 chase that bait in British ports. 
 
 Was passed in the Imperial Parliament the "Act to enable his Ma- 
 jesty to make regulations with respect to the taking and curing 
 fish on certain imrts of the coast of Newfoundland, Labrador, 
 and His Majesty's other possessions in North Amerit^a, according to 
 a convention made between Hia Majesty and the United States of 
 America." It is by this statute declared to be unlawful for persons, 
 not natural-born British subjects, to lish for, iu a foreign vessel, take, 
 dry, or cure any lish within three marine miles of any coasts, bays, 
 creeks, or harbors whatever, in any British port in x\.merica, not in- 
 cluded within the limits specihed and described in the first article of 
 the coinention of 1818. 
 
 It is further declared that it may be lawful for the United States fish- 
 ermen to enter into such bays or harbors, for the purpose of shelter and 
 
 *Tlie words in italics were inserted by the British comuilsslonors in lieu (generally) 
 of other words erased from the project submitted by the American coimnissiuuers ou 
 the 17th of September. Iu some cases the words iu italics are additious. (See ante.) 
 
\f' 
 
 OENEUAL AIM'KXDIX. 
 
 283 
 
 repair! 1 1, '4 (laiiiii.u'cs tlicrcin, iwid of iiurcliiisiii;^' wood, mikI <»!' olttaiiiiiis" 
 water, uihI 1(11' iio otluT jjii^posi' wliatt'vcr ; tlial tlic ;j;()\ cnioi' of Ncw- 
 toiUKllaiid is invested with power to order such jjeisoiis to <h'part; and 
 that persons rel'iisiiii,' to (h'pait alter notice, or Me;;ieelin;^" to ('(Mil'orin to 
 re};tdatioMs. shall forl'eit two hundred pounds. {Suhim'.s Fislierir.s, Ml) I.) 
 
 In the sprinfj;; of the year the Ht'hooner "(diaries" was sei/A'd tor ii 
 l)reaeh ol" tiiis act, in leturnin^' to a harbor a second time alter ^ _^ 
 
 warnin;;'. *'the weather beinj;' tine and nu)derat(^ the whole 
 time." {S. IJ.v. Ihn: 1 00, IVld Con., Ut .scss., paije o.) 
 
 It api>earin,i>' that the (Jharles, durin;;' iier detention, had been used as 
 a 15ritisli ciiiiser, tin; vessels captured bv her were restoi'.'d, 
 
 ' |h'1 Iiin>' ID 
 
 and ollicial inl'ornuUion thert'ot' ;;jven. {Ihitl., jku/c 11.) 
 
 Mr. \'aii;;hn informed Mr. Clay that "the Charles had been reyidarly 
 (condemned in the vicivadiniralty court of the province of New , , 
 
 IJrnnswick, and tlnit it was not, e\[)ected that the Covernnu'nt 
 of the United States would lend further countenance to the cunii)laints 
 of the owners." {Ihid., p((ffc .■)4.) 
 
 It does not appear that there was any further eorres[)ondeuce about 
 this vessel. 
 
 More tu' less correspomlence took place about the •• Reindeer"' and the 
 '• Iluby," wliicli were rescued by force after having;' been seized 
 by a Ilritish cruiser. 
 
 The hisl letter on the subject (from ^Ir. Vaughn to Mr Clay) does not 
 appear to have been ever answered. From that time, until 1>S.'>I) 
 there is no evidence of complaint on the tiles f the l)e[)art- 
 ment of State, so far as known. 
 
 Some complaints of trespass were ma«le by (Jreat Britain this year, but 
 on invest i,i;ation they ai>i)eared to have little foundativ)n. (//>., 
 pacjcii 5o, .")(}, 57, and 58.) 
 
 In this year the statute of Xova Scotia was passed, auLhorizin;^' oflicers 
 to go on board vessels hovering- within three miles of the 
 coast or harbors; to stay on board; to require the vessel to de- 
 part ; to brinj4' it into [)ort if it did not do so within twenty foui- hours; 
 to examine the master on oatii ; to condemn him to a forfeiture of JGIOO 
 if he did n( Inuike true answer; and also anthorizin;^' a forfeiture of the 
 vessel o" carjio fouiul fishinj;' within forbidden waters. There were 
 manyot..('r extraordinary, onerous, and unjust provisions in this act, 
 for which referviuee is made to the act. («S'. Ex. Doc. 100, 3'2(l Con., lut 
 >iess., page 108.) 
 
 The same colony, in an address to the (Jueen, prayed for "a naval 
 force to put an end to American aggressious;" to which tin? colo- 
 nial secretary replied that "it had been determined tor the future 
 to station, (luriny; the fishing season, an armed force on the coast of 
 Nova Scotia to enforce a more strict observance of the treaty by Amer- 
 ican citizens." {Sahiiic'fi Fisheries, page 399.) 
 
 The seizures which followed this course were numerous, {lb., page 400.) 
 
 The volununous correspondence which grew out of these seizures will 
 be found in the Senate Ex. Doc. already cited, pages o9 to 103. The re- 
 sults are summed up in a report from the acting Secretary of 
 State, Mr. Vail, {page 92,) and in a report from Lieutenant- 
 Commanding Paine to Mr. Forsyth, {page 98.) Mr. Vail " is un- 
 able to state whether, in the cases under consideration, there has been 
 any flagrant infraction of the existing treaty stipulations," {page 9.>.) 
 He appears to think that most of the cases were connected with alleged 
 violations of the customs laws. Lieutenant Paine reports that "the 
 authorities of Nova Scotia seem to claim a right to exclude Americans 
 
 Hiii. ,\pnl -Jif. 
 
 H:)ii. 
 
 Hlii. 
 
 WIS), A 111!. U. 
 Dec. 29. 
 
 'li. 
 
 
284 
 
 OENKRAL Al i'ENDIX. 
 
 I 
 
 Mir. ■27. 
 
 iVoiii ;ill liays," "iiiid also to driiw a line Ij'oni liciKlIaiiil to liciKllaiid ;" 
 "that tln' |>ro\ iiic.ial aiitlioiitifs claim a ri;;lit tt» cxcIikIc vessels. miiIc.hs 
 ill actual (listless:"' ami 'MvtHiM exa(!t that American lishermeii shall 
 have Iteeii supplied on leavin;;' home with wood and water lor the crnise." 
 
 iMr. I''ors\tli inlormed .Mr. Stevenson, the rnited.Stale.s minister in Lon- 
 doii, that the provincial ^'anthorities i^laim a ri;;ht to exclude 
 our vessels from resorting; ti> their juirts unless in a(;tiial dis- 
 tress, and American vessels are accordin;L;ly warned tode|)art oroideretl 
 to ^i'ct under way and leave a harbor whenever the |>r(n iiicial custom 
 li()iis(^ or British naval ollicer supposes, without a lull examination "o| 
 the eircumstanees under which they entered, that they have i)een there 
 a reasoiialde time," and instriieteid him to '••immediately reiuoiistrate 
 af^ainst the illej;al and vexatious proceeding's of the authorities of Nova 
 Scotia toward our lishermeii, and re(|uest that measures he forthwith 
 adoi)ted by Her .Majesty's >;()veriimeiit to remedy the evils arisiiiin' out 
 of this misconstriiclion on the part of tlu^ provincial authorities of their 
 eonveiitioiial ()blij;ations." lie also juave stroiij;' and explicit iiistnu'- 
 tioiis as to the Nova Scotia act of IS.'Jd. (//>., patjis l(((i-l(>S.) 
 
 The reasoniiij;' of Mr. Forsyth, on jiayes 107 and IIKS, upon the Nova 
 Scotia law of l.S.'Jti, is applicable, without changing' a word, to the 
 Dominion laws of l.StiS ami ISTO. 
 
 I\lr. Steveiivsoii brought to Lord Paliiierston's notice: 1. The claim to 
 t'xclude American vessels frtim waters " within three iiiih-s of 
 a liiM^ drawn from headland to headland, instead of Irom the 
 indents of the shores of the provinces." li. That the authorities of Nova 
 Scotia had "put upon the i-tiiiulatioiis of the treaty [as to the entry to 
 harbors, ss.it. \ a construction dire<!tly in contlict with their ol)iect, and 
 entirely subversive of t)ie rights and interests of the citizens of the 
 Unitcil Stales." 3. The objectionable law of Xova Scotia. I. The as- 
 sertion, said to be untenable, "that the Gut of (Jaiiso is a narrow strip 
 of water completely within and <lividing several counti(vs of the jirov- 
 ince." {Ih.,p(t<ie,s 113, 111, (tiul Hi).) 
 
 It resulted IVoiii this note that the law-olUcers ol" the Crown were 
 iiKpiired of and gave their opinions: 1. Sustaining the colonial '•head- 
 land'' doctrine, on the assumption that the word "headland" is used in 
 the convention. >Jo such word is there found. 2. Giving an answer as 
 to the use of ports, which is immaterial in the present asiiect, but which 
 was laviirable to the American tisherinen so far as it went. 3. Say noth- 
 ing about the objectionable clauses in the law. 4. Attirining the colonial 
 doctrine about the Gut of Canso. {^iabiiw Fisheries, pagcii 405 u;u/ 400.) 
 
 it does not a\)pear that this document was ever otlicially communi- 
 cated to this Government. 
 
 In a discussion, however, vvliicb took place at London, be- 
 tween Mr. Everett and Lord Aberdeen, in regard to the schooner 
 Wasliingtou, captured in the Bay of Fuudy, these views of the Crown 
 lavv-ollicers were oificiall.y asserted, but without referring to them. 
 {S. Ex. Doc. No. 100, an above, page 120, et sefj.) 
 
 Lord- Aberdeen informed Mr. Everett that while the British 
 ..rch 10. jTQygpmug^j; ^[[^l jjq^ concede that the United States had a right 
 
 to the fisheries in the Bay of Fundy, " they are prepared to direct i.heir 
 colonial authorities to allow henceforward the United States fishermeu 
 to pursue their avocations in any part of the Bay of Fundy, provided 
 they do not approach, except iu the cases specified iu the treaty of 1818, 
 within three miles of the entrance of any bay on the coast of Nova 
 Scotia or New Brunswick." {lb., page 136.) 
 
 1843-'44. 
 
GKM:I!AI- Ari'l'.NDIX. 
 
 28r) 
 
 • Pt 17. 
 
 . .Inly.'). 
 
 11.V.', .Itilvil. 
 
 In tlii.s loiijTf (liHciissiou Mr. Stcvriisoir.s coinpliiiiit.s ii.s to the ic.sii'ur- 
 tions k!;»(iii tlic ii.s«> of port.s seem not lo liavc lu'c i iioIiimmI h; tlic l»riti.sh 
 ^ovt'liiiiiciil, iiiiU'ss tlic lii.st cliiii.st' (|iiotc(l iVoiii lioitl Alu'idccii's note 
 to Mr. lOvi'H'tt is to lio ctjiistiiicd a.s an iinpiicd ii as.scrtiou of tin' doc- 
 trim'. 
 
 Sir liolx'il Pod's {government liavinji nieanwliilo fallen, Lord 
 Stanley wrote to lionl J"'allvlan(l that the lliitish ;;(>\('i'nnM'nt 
 hail ai)an(lone(l the intention they hati on the snhjeet, an<l shonhl ad- 
 here to the strict hotter ol the treaties, except in so far as they may re- 
 late* to the I Jay of l"'nndy. 
 
 No colli.sion of anthority, however, oc^curred, or was threat- 
 ened, until Mr. Orampton ^^ave notic<^ that a force of war- 
 sti'amers ami sailinj;- vessels was eominy; to tln^ fishin;;-j;rounds to pre- 
 vent encroachments of vessels helonjiinji: to eiti/ens of the United States 
 on the fishinn/'ronnds reserved to (Ireat liritain. (//>., jxific l")t.) 
 
 This was done after an inelfecttual attempt to iinlu(!e the United States 
 to (M)nclnde a reciprocity treaty. {S((hiiii-\ Fisheries, paijes i;»(», f;>7, l.'W.) 
 
 ]\Ir. Webster, Secirtary of State, theriMipon issued a c-ircnlar 
 notice to the American lishermen. The following' passa<;e is 
 (pioted with approbati«)n in the |)amphle) review of the Presidents 
 nu's.sajic already cited, [ixine l-"*,) and appears [o We relied upon by Can- 
 adian authorities : 
 
 It would ;i|»|>t'ar tiiat l>y u strict and ri;;id (■oiistriictiou "f tliis articdti lisliliiif-v(>HS(!ls 
 of till- I'liilfd Stales aro iircidiidcd tVoiii riitcriiij^ tln' 'i.iys or linrliors of the ItiitiHli 
 lii'oviiiccs, cxfM'pt for tlic ((iirposn of slu'ltiii', i'('i>iiiri" • dama;;us, and oldaininn woix. 
 and wati r. A liay, as is Msnally nndiMstood, is an arm or vik-os^ (»f tilts sea I'ntriin)^ 
 from t!.' 1 ' iiii liftwci-n t'ii])('s iiinl licadliinds, and tiui form i.>. ui»iilicd ciiiiiiUy to small 
 an<l luriif tractsof watiT tlms sitiiati' 1 ; it is common to ^iicuk of Hudson's \\a\, or tlio 
 I'ay of Kiscay, altlioiisiii llicy arc very lai'MC tracts of water. 
 
 The ISrilish antlioritii's insist tiiat l';n;;land has a rij;lit t')driiw ii lints from headland 
 to Insadhiiitl, anil to capture all American lishermen who may follow thciir pnrsiiits in- 
 sitle ol' that line. It was iintlonhleilly iiii oversitjht in the convontion t>f l^l-* to mako 
 so lar.nc a coaeessioii to Knelaml, since the I'liited States has usually coa-iiilei'eil that 
 those vast inlets or reccssos oiij^lit to he i)[)i>n(!d to American lishormoii as tVocly as tlio 
 sea itself to within throu niarino miles of tlits shore. 
 
 The reviewer claims that Mr. Webster's "sound judft'mout compc^lled 
 him to recoj^nize the le{»al force of the British claims to the only point 
 then in (liai)ute, viz, the headland line. {Review of PiesidcnVs message, 
 paf/e hi.) 
 
 To reach that result he suppresses the following language from the 
 close of the same circular : 
 
 Not ((fjrcdiifi that the coHHtrnction thus put upon the treaty in conforma1>!e to the intentions 
 of the contruetinti parties, this in formation is, however, iiiailo puldie to the end that 
 tbo.so coucenieil iu the American lisht;rio.s may perceive how the case at present stauds 
 and bo on their guard. {Sal>ine's Fisheries, page 441.) 
 
 The provincial secretary of Nova Scotia issued a notice that 
 " No American fishing-vessels are entitled to commercial privi- 
 leges iu provincial ports, but are subject to forfeiture if found engaged 
 in traffic. The colonial collectors have no authority to permit freight to 
 be landed from such vessels, which, under the convention, can oidy en- 
 ter our ports for the purposes specified therein, and lor no other." {Ee- 
 vieiv of Fresidenfti message, page 12.) 
 
 The case of the " Washington " (one of the vessels whose seiz- 
 ure was discussed by Mr. Everett) came before the joint com- 
 mission for settlement of claims, in London, and on disagreement of the 
 commissioners was decided by the umpire, (Mr. Joshua Bates,) who 
 said: 
 
 The question turns, so far as relates to the treaty stipulations, on the meaning given to 
 the word " bays" in the treaty of 1783. By that treaty the Aoiericaua had uo right to 
 
 1H.M-'M. 
 
 , <■ 
 
 ■'!, 
 
 Mi 
 
 ■ -jiKl 
 
286 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 18J3, July IH. 
 
 dry and euro fish on tlio shores and hays of Newfouiidhiiid, hut thoy liiid that riijlit on 
 the coukIs, haijH, harbors, and creekn of Nova Scotia ; and as tliey must lanil to (jore lisli 
 on the shores, hays, and creeks, they were evidently adniitt'.d to tins s!i;)r(!s of the hicin, 
 (S'c, By tlie treaty of 1818 the same rij^ht is granted to cure, lish on the coasts, hays, 
 &c., of Newfoundhvnd, hilt tlie Americans reliiifinisli that rijjfli^ ««'? //»'■ ri'/h' to Jiih 
 within three milex of tlie voantn, liaiiH, .J't'., of Xora Scotia. Takinji; it for j;ru;it('(l tliat tlie 
 framers of the treaty iidonded that tlie words " hay or hays "should iiavc tin; same 
 meaninfj in all eases, and no mention luMnj;; made of headlands, then; apiicars no doubt 
 that the Washington, in fishing ton miles from the shore, violated no stipulations of 
 the treaty. 
 
 It was urged, on hehalf of the British government, that hy coasts, hays, Ac, is un- 
 derstood an imaginary line, drawn along the coast from headland to headland, and 
 that the jurisdiction of Her Majesty extends thuie marine miles outside of this line : 
 thus eloslng all the hays on the coast or shore, and that gnsat body of water (;alliid the 
 Bay of Finnly, against Anuuicans and others, making the latter a British I)ay. This 
 doctrim> of headlands is new, and has reccnved a jiroper limit in the convention be- 
 tween France and Great Britain of 'M August, 18.VJ, in whi(!li " it is .igri'Ml tliat tlie 
 distance of three miles iixiid as the gencu'al limit for the* exclusive right of fi'^ln'iy upon 
 the coasts of the two countries shall, with respect to hays, the moutlis of whicli ilo not 
 exceed ten miles in width, he measured from a straight line drawn from iieailland to 
 headland." 
 
 The Bay of Fundy is from G.') to To miles wide and 130 to 140 miles long; ii lias seve- 
 ral hays on its coasts; thus the word hay, as apjilied to this great body of water, has. 
 the same miianing as that applied to the Bay of Biscay, the Bay of Bengal, over which 
 no nation can have the right to assume the sovereignty. One of tlit; headlands of the 
 Bay of Fnndy is in the United States, and ships hound to I'assanuuiuoddy must sail 
 through a large space of it. The islands of Grand Meiiaii (British) and Little Mcuan 
 (Americau) are situated nearly on a line from headland to headland. These islands, 
 as represtuited in all geographies, are situ.ate in the Atlantic Ocean. The ((melusion is, 
 therefore, in my mind irresistible that the Bay of Fnndy is not a British liay, nor a bay 
 within the meaiiiiig of the word, as used in the treaties of 1783 and Lvild. {lUport of 
 Decinioiiti of Comminsion, imijc 181.) 
 
 Mr. llicliiirtl Ku.sh, one of the negotiators of the trenty of IS18, 
 wrote to tlie Secretary of State, (referring to tliat iu.striunent:) 
 " In signing it we believe that we retained the right of (ishiiig in the 
 sea, whether called a bay, gnlf, or by whatever term designated, that 
 washed any part of the coast of the British North Aineri(;an [novinces, 
 with the simple exception that we did not come within a mdvine Imi/uc 
 of the shore. * * # # # We inserted the clanso of renunciation. 
 The British plenipotentiaries di<l not desire it." 
 
 The conclusion of the reciprocity treaty rendered the reas- 
 sertion of the disputed claim by the Xova Scotian .secretary of 
 no iiuportance, and disposed of all the other questions for the time 
 being. (10 Stat, at Luyge, puge 108J>.) 
 
 iSTotice was given to abrogate the reciprocity treaty, the abro- 
 gation to take effect in one year from tlie notice. 
 
 The Canadian government then resorted to the sysnim of 
 licensing American lishermen to fish in the in-shore lisheries. 
 The number of licenses taken out the first year is reported to have been 
 Soi. {lieriew of President's messaf/e, page 23.) The fee is stated to have 
 been fifty cents per ton. {Manuscript review of the review, page 27.) 
 
 The license-fee the next year was one dollar per ton. {^^a)lH■ 
 script review, ttrc, page 27.) Tbe number of licenses was 281. 
 {Review, tOc, 2>«/;e 23.) 
 
 The license-fee was again doubled, viz, to two «lollars per ton, 
 {Ms. review, tl^c, page27',) only fifty-six licenses were taken out 
 in 1808, and in the following year (L8(>9) only twenty-five licen.^es were 
 taken out. {Review of President's message, page 23.) 
 
 The Dominion " act respecting fishing by foreign vessels," 
 passed in 18G8, and the third section, amended in 1870, con- 
 tains, among other provisions, the following : Section 1, author- 
 izing the granting of licienses. Section 2, authorizing officers to board 
 
 1854, Jane f). 
 
 1*). M:ir. \7 
 
 HOI). 
 
 188-. 
 
 is(>8-'(ia- 
 
 ISflS, Mny 22. 
 1870. Mil}- 12. 
 
t ri^i;lit oil 
 1) (!iin> li.sli 
 f fbf 1)11 •in, 
 lists, hays, 
 '//(' to Jhh 
 •d tliiit'tlio 
 
 ' till! SillUll 
 
 s no doubt 
 iiliitioiis of 
 
 &c., is iiii- 
 llaiid, and 
 tliis lino ; 
 call.id the 
 l)ay. Tiiis 
 •cntion ln!- 
 tliut till- 
 ill cry upon 
 icli do not 
 ijadhind to 
 
 t lias si'vt"- 
 wattT. lias 
 >\cr whicli 
 inds ol" the 
 J- must sail 
 ttlc Mi'iian 
 ■sc islands, 
 nclnsion is, 
 )•, nova bay 
 (Jii-porl of 
 
 \,- of 1818, 
 Lrmnent:) 
 ii,o- in the 
 itcd, tluit 
 n-oviuces, 
 ine lc(((jiu' 
 iiiciiitiou. 
 
 tlie reus- 
 
 jivtary of 
 
 the time 
 
 the abro- 
 
 syst<Mii of 
 ' lisluM'ies. 
 Iiavo been 
 (1 to hax'e 
 ic 27.) 
 . {Maim- 
 i was 281. 
 
 PS per ton, 
 taken out 
 iiiHes were 
 
 I vessels," 
 
 1870, eon- 
 
 1, author- 
 
 8 to board 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 287 
 
 ships, vessels, or boats within any harbor of Canada, or hoverin<2C withiu 
 three marine miles of the coasts, &c., and to stay on board. Section 3, 
 as amended, provides that any one of such ofiicers, »S:e., may brinjiaiiy 
 ship, vS:c., hovering, &c., into port and search her cargo ; and may also 
 examine the master on oath touching the cargo and voyage ; and that 
 if true answers are not given the master shall forfeit $100 ; and that if 
 the shij), »S:e., be foreign or not navigated according to the laws of the 
 United Kingdom or Canada, and shall have been found iishing or pre- 
 paring to lisli, or to have been tishing (in British wjiters) within three 
 marine miles of any of the coasts, &c., not included in the limits named 
 in the convention of 1818, the ship, &c., with its tackle, &c., shall be for- 
 feited. Section 4 ])rovides tlHit every person opposing an oHieer shall 
 forfeit .$800. Section 10 provides that in case of seizure the hiinlcti of 
 proving the iUcgaliti/ shall he upon the owner or claimant. Section VI re- 
 quires heavy security to be given before a seizure can be contested. 
 Section 14 limits a right of action for an illegal seizure to three nu)nths. 
 
 This statute contains in an exaggerated form the worst features of the 
 i!>rova Scotia statute of 183G. 
 
 Mr. Forsyth, in his instructions to Mr. Stevenson, already alluded to, 
 said that that statute was a "violation of well-established i)rin('iples of 
 the connnon law of England, and of the principles of all Just powers 
 and of all civilized nations, and seemed to be expressly designed to en- 
 able ller ]\I;ijesty's authorities, with perfect impunity, to seize and con- 
 fiscate xVmerican vessels, and to embezzle, almost indiscriminately, the 
 pro])erty of our citizens employed in the fisheries on the coasts of the 
 British i»ossessions." Mr. Everett stigmatized it as "possessing none 
 of the qualities of the law of civilized states but its forms." And i' 
 was styled by a Senator of that time as "evidently designed to legaliz' 
 marauding upon an industrious, enterprising class of men, who haven » 
 means to contend with such sharp and unwarrantable weapons of wa:- 
 fare." {Sabine' h Fisheries^ page 478.) 
 
 Mr. Thornton ofVuMally communicated to Mr. Fish the inten- 
 tion of the ('anadian government to issue no more licenses to 
 American fishermen. 
 
 Mr. Thoiiiton communicated oflicially to the Department the 
 instructions issued totiiecommanderof the British inaval forces, 
 by which itwouldappear that, notwithstanding the decision of the umpire 
 in 1853, Her 3Iajesty's government in 1800 were "clearly of the opinion 
 that by the convention of 1818 the United States have renounced the 
 right of tishing not only within three miles of the colonial shores, but 
 within three miles of aline drawn across the mouth of any Biitish bay 
 or creek ; but that they are not disposed, for the present, to enforce 
 what they regard as their rights." [Foreign h'elations, 1870, 2>'ig(^ 410.) 
 
 The whole correspondence in the book last cited, from page 407 to 
 page 434, bears directly upon the issues now raised. 
 
 Mr. Tliornton informed Mr. Fish thai he had " received in- 
 structions from Earl Granville to explain to Mr. Fish that the 
 instructions resi)ectiiiig the limits within which the prohibition of fish- 
 ing is to be sMiforced against the United States fishermen are not- to be 
 considered as constituting an arrangement between the governnu'iits of 
 the United States and of Great Britain, by which Canadian rights are 
 waived, or the United States flshermen invested with any privilege." 
 
 7.-SUMMAKY OF THE CONCLUSIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE FOK'KfJOING 
 
 REVIEW. 
 
 I. That the acquisition of the right to American flshermen to flsli on 
 the in-shore flslieries, from which they are now excluded, is more im- 
 
 Wro. Apri 
 
 IH,-0, June 3. 
 
 1h;i). .Iiilr'^1. 
 
 »: 
 
 
 
288 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 portant as removing danger of collision than as of great intrinsic value. 
 Its money-value is probably overestimated by the Canadians. 
 
 II. That the British hendland doctrine has no foundation in the treaty, 
 has been decided against Great Britain in a cause where it was the only 
 issue, and is now insisted upon theoretically rather than practically . 
 
 III. That the right now asserted to exclude American fishermen from 
 the open ports of the Dominion ; to prevent them from purchasing bait, 
 supplies, ico, »&c.; to prevent them from transshipping their iish inbDud, 
 under color of the provisions of tbe convention of 1818, is an assump- 
 tion and a construction of that instrument which was never acquiesced 
 in by the United States ; and is carrying out in practice provisions 
 which were proposed to the United State* commissioners by fhe Brit- 
 ish commissioners in 1818, and were rejected by the former. 
 
 IV. That the mackerel fishery, out of which the trouble mostly coiiies, 
 is a matter that has come into existence since the negotiation of the 
 treaty, and it is a subject for consideration whether the terms of the 
 convention are fairly applicable to it. ,1 
 
 8.— REMEDIES. 
 
 It is suggested that this class of questions may be adjusted, either — 
 
 I. By agreeing upon the terms upon which the whole of tiie reserved 
 fishing-grounds may be thrown open to x\merican fishermen, which 
 might be acconqjanied with a repeal of the obnoxious laws, and the ab- 
 rogation of the disputed reservation as to ports, harbors, ike, &c. ; or, 
 failing that — 
 
 II. By agreeing upon the construction of the disputed renunciation ; 
 upon the principles upon which a line should be run by a joint (jommis- 
 sion to exhibit the territory from which the xVmerican fishernu'u are to be 
 excluded; and by repealing the obnoxious laws, and agreeing upon the 
 measures to be taken for enforcing the colonial rights, the penalties to 
 be inflicted for a forfeiture of tl^i same, and a mixed tribunal to enforce 
 the same. It m.ay also be well to consider whether it should be further 
 agreed tliat the fish taken in the waters open to both nations shall be 
 admitted free of duty into the United States and the British North 
 American Colonies. 
 
 In addition to the authorities hereinbefore cited, there is in the ar- 
 chives of the ])ep{irtment of State a copious and well-arranged memoir 
 upon the subject of the fisheries, by Eichard D. Cutts, esq., of the Coast- 
 Survey, which will be placed at the disposal of the commissioners. 
 
 
 LW'. / 
 
 K'l H 
 
IlI.-NAVIGATION OF THE ST. LAWRENCE. 
 
 m 
 m 
 
 The rresident states in his Annual Messajje (Deoeinbei, 1870) that 
 this river constitntes a material outlet to the ocean for eiy;ht States, with 
 an aggregate population of al)out 17,000,000 inhabitants, and with an 
 nggregat^ tonnage of 001,307 tons upon the waters which discharge 
 into it. 
 
 During the administration of Mr. John Qnincy Adams, Mv. Clay de- 
 monstrated the natural right of the citizens of the United States to the 
 navigation of this river, claiming that theactof the congress of Vienna, 
 ill opening the lihine and other rivers to all nations, showed the judg- 
 ment of European jurists and statesmen that the inhabitants of a coun- 
 try through which a navigable river passes have a natural right to en- 
 joy the navigation of that river to and into the sea, even though [)assing 
 through the territories of another power. This right does not exclude the 
 CO equal right of the sovereign possessing the territory through which the 
 river debouches into the sea to make such regulations relative to the 
 police of the navigation as nmy be reasonably necessary ; but those reg- 
 ulations should be framed in a liberal spirit of comity, and should not 
 impose needless burdens upon the commerce which has the right of 
 transit. (0 Foreifpi Relations, folio paycs 757 to 777.) 
 
 If the claim made by Mr. Clay was just when the population of St ites 
 bordering on the shores of the lakes was only tiiree nnllion four luuulred 
 thousand, it now derives greater force and equity from the increased 
 ])opulation, wealth, production, and tonnage of the States on the Cana- 
 dian frontier. Since Mr. Clay advanced his argument in behalf of our 
 right, the principle for which he contended has been frequently, and by 
 various nations, recognized by l.iw or by treaty, and has been extended 
 to several other great rivers. Bj^ the treaty concludeil at Mayence, in 
 1831, the Illiine was declared free from the point where it is lirst navi- 
 gable into the sea. By the convention between Spain and Portugal, 
 concluded in 1835, the navigation of the Douro, thioughout its whole 
 extent, was made free for the subjects of both crowns. In 1853 the Ar- 
 gentine Confederation, by treaty, threw open the free navigation of the 
 Parana and the Uruguay to the merchant-vessels of all nations. In 
 185(5 the Crimean war was closed by a treaty which provided for the free 
 navigation of the Danube. In 1858 Bolivia, by treaty, declared that it 
 regarded the rivers Amazon and La Plata, in accordance with lixed 
 l>rin('iples of national law, as highw.iys or cliannels opened by nature 
 for the commenre of all nations. In 185!> the Paraguay was made free 
 by treaty, and in December, 18(50, tlie lOmperor of iiiazil, by imju'rial 
 decree, declared the Amazon to be open, to the frontier of Brazil, to the 
 merchant-shii)s of all nations. Sir Robert Pliillimore, the gieatest liv- 
 ing British authority on this subject, while asserting the abstract riglit 
 of the British <!laim,says: "It seems dillicult todeny that Creat Britain 
 may ground her refusal upon strict laiv; but it is equally dirticult to 
 deny, first, that in so doing slie exercises harshly an extreme and hard 
 law ; secondly, that her conduct with respect to the navigation of the 
 St. Lawrence is in glaring and discreditable inconsistency with her con- 
 duct with respect to the navigation of the Mississippi. On the grouiul 
 
 19 H 
 
I 
 
 W I' 
 
 ?■? 
 
 290 
 
 GEXKRAL Al'PENDIX. 
 
 that she possesses a small domain, in which the Mississipi)i took its rise, 
 she insisted ou the right to navigate the entire vohime of its waters. 
 On the ground that she possesses both banks of the St. Lawrence where 
 it disembogues itself into the sea, she denies to tlie United States the 
 right of navigation, though about half the waters of Lakes Ontario, 
 Erie, Huron, and Superior, and the whole of Lake Michigan, through 
 which the river tiows, are the property of the United Stat 's." (See 
 Phillimore's International Law% vol, 1, page 107 ct setj., where the au- 
 thorities are collected and reviewed.) 
 
 Tlie canals in aid of the lake and Saint Lawrence navigation are : 
 1. The Sault Ste. Marie Canal, in the dominions of tlie United States. 
 Vessels between Lake Huron and Lake Superior must pass through 
 this canal. 2. The Saint Clair Canal, in the dominions of tiie United 
 States, which is a deepining of the channel to the depth of fourteen 
 feet. 3. The Welland Canal, in ]>ritish dominions, from Luke Erii' 
 to Lake Ontario. 4. Several canals between Lake Ontario and tide- 
 water, in the aggregate about forty miles in length. ."». The canal 
 between Lake Chamjdain and the river Saint La\vren<'e. Neither of the 
 Canadian canals have at present the capacity of the Auuni<'an cauitls, 
 A confidential memorandum was submitted by (Jreat liritain 
 as the basis of proposed arrangements on the sabject of the 
 navigation ot the Saint Lawrence, and other inland waters of IJritish 
 !North America, &c. This was in substance as follows: That if a satis- 
 factory reciprocity-treaty could be made, the United States should be 
 restored to the enjoyment of the fisheries as under the old r«'eiprocity- 
 treaty; and also to the navigation of the inland waters of Caiuula : 
 provided, further, that like permission in the United States shouhl be 
 granted to Canada. Canada was also willing to further agree to enlarge 
 and in)i)rove the access to the ocean, provided she could have assurance 
 of the permanency of the anangement for reciprocity. The proposal 
 further contemplated throwing open the coasting-trade to each party; 
 reciprocal patent and co])yriglit laws ; arrangements for a reciprocal 
 transit trade; extension of the provisions of the extradition treaties, 
 and are-adjustment of the Canadian excise-duty. 
 
 No steps were taken in the direction of carrying out these suggestions. 
 
 The present importance of some of these points may be estimate«l 
 from the following tables for the fiscal year ending .June .'50, ISH'J: 
 
 l.—Iniimrts into (Jiichic dud Ontario. 
 
 riiur. 
 
 Outui'io . 
 
 T0t4tl 
 
 Foreign guuds — 
 
 Tiitiil impoits (if Xtit tlip prodiire 'l')w i)ro<Iii<'(i ot' 
 liiifiun yuixls. I (if the Unitt'd , the United 
 Slates, iiuiioi't- I StiiteH, import- 
 ed via tlie Uid- I ed from tlie 
 ted Stiitcii. I' iiited States. 
 
 J;'!), -.45, 177 
 ■23, 7d4, 7«-l 
 
 Jti, i^no, 207 
 
 4, fsn, j-Ji 
 
 <ti, 170, 07- 
 14,5!h', 5::i 
 
 53, SO!), 941 
 
 11, 740, 0;t5i 
 
 •JO, 7(y, (I5.t 
 
k Its rise, 
 s waters, 
 ce wliert' 
 tales the 
 Oiitiuio, 
 tlii'onaii 
 s/' (See 
 i the ail- 
 
 tioii are : 
 (1 States. 
 tlir()n}»ii 
 o United 
 fourteen 
 ike Erie 
 ind tide- 
 lie canal 
 ler of the 
 :'anals. 
 t Britain 
 •t of the 
 r IJiitish 
 \' a satis- 
 hould be 
 'iproeity- 
 Canada : 
 iiouhl be 
 ) enhirge 
 ssaranee 
 proposal 
 ih party ; 
 eciprocal 
 treaties, 
 
 ji^estions. 
 stiniatetl 
 
 prndiicii of 
 ! IJ 11 i 1 1' il 
 itoH, iiiipoit- 
 from till' 
 lited Htatfti. 
 
 «(), 170, 07- 
 H, 5!W, J7:. 
 
 vio, 7(1'.', (i:.;f 
 
 s *-. 
 
 I? 
 2^ 
 
 "^5 
 
 3 * 
 
 
 5"'^ S 
 
 •« CO 
 
 -* O ^ 
 
 5 fe-£ 
 
 >• a = 
 = c c 
 
 "2 ~ '^ 
 
 ::? 30 *• 
 
 i « « 
 
 "ti "^i "*- 
 
 c 
 
 cS 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 C3 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 ci 
 
 U 
 
 s a 
 
 u 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 
 
 
 -M -^ O 1- 
 
 Of- 
 
 'p '1 
 
 
 — 
 
 i- -- 'i 
 
 i* * 
 
 Y. 
 
 -r 
 
 
 
 
 ^ r; »iT o r: r; 
 
 "?» , 
 
 
 T. — i- 7» * "-* 
 
 X- 
 
 
 
 w|.)s: 
 
 
 ■^ TO -ID -.O — r. 
 
 x> 
 
 
 •p O 1^ X 'C ^ 
 
 » 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 -^ t. >r, Ti -^ o 
 
 TJ 
 
 
 
 
 ?l 
 
 •S.»A no 
 
 Kiroj 
 
 
 ii TJ T* '* ^ *- 
 
 . 1 
 
 
 i "* X ^ z. 
 
 '* 
 
 (I) lIlllKUtV 
 
 
 —' TJ V^ i-T -t' 
 
 9 \ 
 
 
 *» 
 
 tJ 
 
 5 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 n\ 
 
 
 CI 
 
 
 
 
 TO 
 
 
 Ci 5i — T Tl X 
 — i- -r *- O — 
 o — r: — ij^ -H 
 
 — 1- 1-: c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r: * - c; r: — r. 
 
 
 
 
 
 a« ' 
 
 
 s ! 
 
 
 ■^ -r 1- i.*: X X 
 
 X 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 T- r-. 1- *. -r — 
 
 o' ' 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 1- 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 -r 11 '•: -f -c *. 
 
 . ■ 
 
 
 — •-« f- w- ■^ 
 
 re ; 
 
 
 
 o ^ ro 7* fL- 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 '^ \\^l 
 
 1z 
 
 
 
 *-i 
 
 rf . 
 
 
 
 1 U, 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 !l 
 
 ^ 
 
 T"! 
 
 
 X X 1.- -M — x 
 
 T. 1 
 
 
 ^ c o r: ■n' rr 
 
 f \ T> 
 
 
 
 i' r; r: ■^ -r I'- 
 
 t- 
 
 
 cr. i-^ — i« c — - 
 
 <- ' 'T 
 
 
 
 Ti c. "T -r ^^ f 
 
 7» ; 
 
 
 «- r; o 71 -H 
 
 •.-: 1 n 
 
 
 a ' 
 
 a 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 „'-;^'^--^-X 
 
 f^ 
 
 
 Cf rt" 
 
 T 
 
 § 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 X -^ i il 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -. 1 
 
 
 — X -H I r:t 
 
 " II "I 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 71 'T . 1 . 
 
 ;3 ' 
 
 
 T -x; 3 • — ' 
 
 r.i 3", 
 
 « l' 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 C-. -r '^ <n 
 
 ?: !■ en 
 
 n 
 
 a 
 
 
 79 '''>'■ 
 
 7f 1 
 
 
 ^ri " t-" 
 
 ^- Ix 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 r5 
 
 f 
 
 •t* 
 
 H 
 
 
 I I 1 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 « 
 
 'O 
 
 a a 
 
 ai 
 
 
 
 ; ; 
 
 
 ^n 
 
 
 '•s'-z> t^ • -:» 
 
 t? 
 
 '^T 
 
 b 
 
 
 S *' i i 
 
 li. 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 ri 
 
 
 i-t -r • o 
 
 *' 
 
 X 
 
 -= 
 
 
 I I ■ 
 
 
 
 ^« *■ • i»4 
 
 ro 
 
 •"■J 
 
 9 
 
 
 1 : 1 
 
 i 
 
 
 cf I 
 
 7f 
 
 71" 
 
 'fM 
 
 s 
 
 
 i 't I 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ?^ 
 
 
 I I I 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JJ CI lO o 1 
 
 12 ! 
 
 
 '-0 '^ fj C» f- 
 
 c. 
 
 2 
 
 2 . 
 
 
 
 t- X ^ 1" < 
 
 
 
 tw 1.1 o -f -?■ 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 j^ — c -r < 
 
 ■^ i 
 
 
 c. tc ?7 7» n 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 ^ * 
 
 '/I 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 SS 
 
 fl 
 
 
 o r^ ?» "71 • 
 
 -r ' 
 
 
 ^"^■-r 1.-5 -Ti-" 
 
 1 -f 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 -T TT r- rS . 
 
 <- 1 
 
 
 o r-. 
 
 
 1 1- 
 
 .a 2 
 
 
 1-t »-l 
 
 m \ 
 
 
 
 *"* 
 
 T" 
 
 i = 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 2 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 _ _ _ 
 
 ^ 
 
 „ 
 
 
 
 
 *f^— ; 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 I- Tl 00 ?l i 
 
 
 fS i* -C •.'^ 7» 
 
 ^ r> 
 
 
 
 O 4- « ,. • 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 C 53 
 
 
 
 
 ^i . 
 
 
 r7 *r <— t 
 
 — 1 51 
 
 
 
 
 
 - ' 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 « 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 -._. 
 
 71 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 c « 9 ;>; cr t~ 
 
 1 
 
 X t 
 
 ST. Irt =■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7J r7 r- X . c 
 
 71 
 
 St; 
 
 ■2 = 
 
 00 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 
 2 i m *' '"■ '" 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 rs S* 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 a 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 3? 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 M » X C i.O — 
 
 '"'a' 
 
 
 r- -^ — r^ ' f 
 
 >Xl -- 
 
 s 2 
 
 D 
 
 
 <- f 1 — -J = 1-: 
 
 
 O' 7' — -H • C 
 
 m rs 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 X rt /. — v: 1 - 
 
 
 
 r? -« i" ' 
 
 t- 
 
 2-^ 
 
 a 
 
 
 ^-^ 
 
 '-^ 1 
 
 
 
 -•" 1 S 
 
 1 
 
 V5 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 r: c X ■>> c; - 
 
 . 
 
 
 fo X rr -f i t- 
 
 ^i!i 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 — C-. /. 5C ». ;■ 
 
 
 
 O C 7f O . /- 
 
 
 
 
 •T i^ 3 rt (- *T 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 - _• 1 
 
 
 — * 1 I- 
 
 - -Ilo 
 
 2 • 
 
 o 
 
 
 g i -f 5. S ? 
 
 ?• 1 
 
 
 
 i ^ 
 
 
 
 
 11 rs ri --r L- 
 
 -r 
 
 
 
 1* 
 
 i 'S Pi 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 . 1 
 
 
 
 
 I ce - 
 
 
 
 
 CI ; 
 
 
 
 
 i.2 
 ^1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 I-' 
 
 
 ■» «s — o -o t- 
 
 nc 
 
 
 51 O iC — 
 
 - 3 
 
 3^ 
 
 
 
 00 1 
 
 
 r^ ■ ^ 
 
 -a 1 -« 
 
 s 3 
 
 ,a 
 
 
 :c . 
 
 
 
 rt j X 
 
 1 '^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 71 
 
 
 
 1 ._. 
 
 
 
 ■ji 
 
 ; ; ; 
 
 
 \ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 I 1 t 
 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'u 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 ?^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 bi 
 
 • 1 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 bi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r- 
 
 • 1 1 
 
 
 • 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■< 
 
 
 
 tc 
 
 ; 1 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 ■/. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 ' 1 • 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ! ;j^ 
 
 
 , ^ 
 
 
 
 ',a 
 
 
 * -i 
 
 w 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 a; 
 
 ; > 
 : a 
 
 i .2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 : ;® 
 
 1 )i 
 
 > 
 
 
 :o 
 
 
 ? 'C ^ 
 
 
 
 
 i ;m^ 
 
 . CI 
 
 1 c^ 
 
 
 
 
 l?j<it 
 
 I a % 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 !« 
 
 « Bl C.S 5 
 
 5 o 
 
 1 '5 
 
 3 
 
 b) 
 H 
 •«1 
 
 
 « fl ^- 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 1 t 
 
 a 
 
 
 11 a 2 
 : £-1 -C 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 ^y:5i 
 
 \x^ 
 
 i 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^5^ 
 
 3 ^.: 
 
 ;x3 
 
 t 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 291 
 
 . 
 
m: 
 
 IV.-IIECIPROCAL TRADE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND 
 
 THE DOMINION OF CANADA. 
 
 h'M 
 
 I 
 
 t 
 
 'i,. 
 
 » f ' i 
 
 r 
 
 i; 
 
 i 
 
 
 w 
 hi' 
 
 ^f 
 
 ^ 
 
 :■!■>> 
 
 if 
 
 L 
 
 iHt.'i 
 
 Previously to 1845 the trade of the United States and otbor 
 nations witli the British provinces of Canada and others north 
 and east of the United States was burdened with a system of ditteren- 
 tial duties winch diacri rains ted ajaainst foreign ijnportations in favor of 
 British to such an extent as to prevent any extensive importations into 
 those provinces from the United States. 
 
 Under these circumstances om* exports, which, for the four years pre- 
 ceding the reciprocity-treaty, averaged about eleven millions of dollars 
 per annum, did not average, for the i>eriod extending from 1821 to 1844, 
 lour millions per annum. {Estimated from table 3, 1st division, If. li. 
 Ex. Doc, 3Sth Confj., 1st sess.) 
 
 In 1845 the liritish government changed their colonial commercial 
 policy bj' authorizing the Canadian legislature to regulate their own 
 tariff. In 1846 the Canadian legislature removed the existing dill'eren- 
 tial duties, and admitted American manufactures and foreign goods, 
 purchased in the American markets, on the same terms as those from 
 Great Britain. This change gave a considerable impetus to importa- 
 tions from the United States, so that by the years 1851-'52-'53 they 
 were upward of twelve, ten and a half, and thirteen millions of dollars, 
 respectively. {S. Ex. Doc. No. 1, 32d Conf)., Ist ,sess., p. 85.) {Estimated 
 from table 3, 1st division, H. R. Ex. Doc., 3Sth Cong., 1st scss.) 
 
 A proposition for a reciprocal relaxation of commercial restric- 
 tions between the United States and the British North Ameri- 
 can provinces was presented by Mr. John F. Crarapton, the charge 
 d'affaires of Great Britain, in a note of the 22d March, 1849, which, 
 with the correspondence to which it led, is to be found in the congres- 
 sional documents. 
 
 President Taylor's message, transmitting this correspondence 
 to the House of Bepresentatives, submits to Congress the expe- 
 diency of effecting an arrangement for a free trade between the United 
 States and the provinces in their natural productions, providing, also, 
 for the free navigation of the Saint Lawrence and of the canals connect- 
 ing it with the lakes. 
 
 ]\Ir. Packenham, the British minister, had, in 1840, commu- 
 
 184fi ' 7 7" 
 
 nicated with tlie Secretary of the Treasury, (Hon. Itobert J. 
 Walker,) who immediately submitted the matter to the Government; 
 and Mr. Crampton aga'u brought the subject before him in 
 1848, in consequence of which a bill was drawn up by Mr. 
 Grinnell of the Committee on Commerce of the House of Kepresenta- 
 tives, and its adoption recommended by the Secretary of the Treasury 
 in a letter to that committee of 1st of May, 1848. The bill was passed 
 by the House of Representatives, but was not voted upon that session 
 by the Senate. {Ex. Doc. No. 04, H. R., 31st Cong., 1st session.) 
 
 Mr. Crami)ton, on the 25th of June, 1840, wrote to the Sec- 
 retary of State, Mr. Clayton, inclosing a memorandum drawn 
 up by Hon. William Hamilton Merritt, one of the (Janadian cabinet, 
 sent to AVasbington to ascertain the decision of the United States. The 
 
 1850. 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 293 
 
 ••■• ■..a 
 
 ) i 
 
 \ND 
 
 4W. 
 
 memoraiuluin reviews the efi'orta made by the provincial government, 
 and the notice given by Hon. Mr. Robinson, in tlie provincial parliament, 
 of an address to the Queen, praying for a return to protection, &c., in- 
 closes c()i)y of a letter from Mr. Grinnell, of the Committee on Commerce, 
 to Hon. \l. J. Walker, and Mr. Walker's reply meets objections to reci- 
 procity, and elaborates considerations in favor of it. 
 
 INIr. Grinnell to Mr. Walker, April 28, 1848, asks his views 
 on reciprocal free trade in the articles of the growth or pro- 
 duction of the provinces and the United States, respectively. 
 
 Mr. McC. Young replies for Mr. Walker, warmly approving it. The 
 Canadian bill on the subject is given, and is said to be the exact coun 
 terpart of the bill before Congress. 
 
 Mr. Clayton wrote to Mr. Crampton 20th June, 18U), in reply 
 to his note of the diiy before, which inclosed the memorandum 
 nuide by Mr. Merritt. As a measure atf'ecting the revenue, the proposed 
 arrangement would be referred to Cot)gress, before whom a copy of the 
 papers would be laid. Kefers, as furnisliing a British example for this, 
 to Mr. Bancroft's efforts to negotiate at London a commercial treaty, in 
 1847, when the necessity of a similar reference to Parliament was 
 pointed out to him ; and to the failure of the reciprocity- bill in the Sen- 
 ate, after considerable debate, when a bare majority would have carried 
 it, as an indication that a treaty having the same objects in view could 
 not be expected to obtain the requisite majority of two-thirds. {Ro. 
 Repti. Ex. Doe. Xo. 04, 'dint Congress, 1st session.) 
 
 President Fillmore's annual message of 2d December, 1851, 
 invites the attention of Congress to the question of reciprocal 
 trade with British provinces; states that overtures for a convention 
 have been made, but suggests that it is preferable that the subject 
 should be regulated by reciprocal legislation. Documents submitted 
 showing the offer of British government, ami measures it may adopt, if 
 some arrangement on this subject is not made. 
 
 The accompanying papers were: Note of March, 1851, from Sir H. 
 L. Bulwer to Mr. Webster, inclosing copj' of letter of 0th January, 
 1851, from Mr. F. Hincks, inspector-general of customs, Canada, 
 to Hon. R. McLane, chairman of Committee on Commerce, 
 House of Representatives. Sir H. L. Bulwer thinks thit the Canadians 
 consider that their application for an interchange of agricultural pro- 
 ducts has failed because they have generously, without stipulations, 
 conceded many commercial advantages which it was in their power to 
 bestow; and that their only mode of securing desired privileges is to 
 revoke concessions made. His attention had been drawn to two resolu- 
 tions which passed the Senate on the subject, which he was told would 
 have passed the House if proposed to that body. 
 
 Proposes entering into a negotiation. 
 
 Mr. Hineks, in his letter to Mr. McLane, recites the important changes 
 which have occurred in the colonial ])olicy of (ireat Britain (ioncerning 
 the regulation of commercial matters, an«l the removal of ditferential 
 duties from American i)ro<lu(',tions; that had Canada at that time stipu- 
 lated that in return for her aduiissiori of American manufacttues, the 
 duties should be removed from her products, it would have been the 
 interest of the United States to have agrecMl to it. No su<;h proposi- 
 tion, however, was mad«^ ; and the very important concession scarcely 
 attracted attention in the United States. Descnibes the important 
 rcvsults in the increased demand for American productions in the prov- 
 inces, and the har(lshi|) of Canadian raw products, sent to the Unit«Ml 
 States, being burdened with high duties. Urges with much force and 
 
294 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 \h:,-2 !'•■ 
 
 intelligence tbc considerations in fuvor of some arningenient of the 
 qnestioii. 
 
 Sir H. L. Biilwer to Mr. Webster, ]\rarch, 1851. Unless the Canadian 
 concessions are reciprocated, they will retaliate by withdrawing them. 
 Offers the Saint Lawrence, and canals, and the fisheries of Nova Scotia 
 and Now Brunswick. Wants to know frankly whether the United States 
 will treat or recommend legislation securing reciprocity. Incloses copy 
 of a dispatch of June 7, 1M51, from Lord Elgin, governor-general, toSir 
 Henry L. liulwer, in which he expresses fears that i>ublic opinion in 
 Canada will demand a vesort to closing the canals, to levying a duty of 
 20 per cent, on American goods, and a return to differential duties on 
 grain and breadstuffs, vegetables, fruits, seeds, animals, hides, wool, 
 cheese, tallow, horns, salted and fresh meats, ores, plaster of Paris, 
 ashes, timber, staves, and wood. 
 
 Incloses extracts to the effect that the British government are pre- 
 pared to open the fisheries if the United States will admit fish free. 
 This arrangement not to apply to Newfoundland. 
 
 The adjustment of the questions of commercial reciprocity and the 
 iri,,3. 1). .fisheries was the subject of conferences between Mr. Everett 
 *■ and Mr. Crampton during the brief service of the former as 
 
 Secretary of State, as appears in a i)ostscript to an instruction of the 
 4th Decem')er, 1852, to Mr. IngersoU, United States minister to London, 
 but no record was kept of what transpired in those conferences. {The 
 instniction and P. S. ahorc referred to are 2)rintcd in Sen. Ex. Doc. Xo. 3, 
 sj)ecial session, March 8, 1853.) 
 
 President Fillmore, in his annual message of 0th December, 1852, 
 referring to the agitation of the preceding summer, on the fishery 
 question, thinks the moment favorable for the reconsideratio 
 of the question of the fisheries, with a view to place them upon a more 
 liberal footing of reciprocal privilege. He states that there is a willing- 
 ness on the part of Great Britain to meet ns in such au arrangemenf, 
 which will include the subject of commercial intercourse with the Brit- 
 ish provinces. Has thought that each subject should be embraced in a 
 separate convention. {Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 1, 32d Cong., 2d sess.) 
 
 The Committee on Commerce of the House of Ke|)resenta- 
 fives, of which the Hon. D. L. Seymour was chairman, had 
 under consideration sundry memorials relative to reciprocal trade, and 
 reported House bill No. 300, accompanied by a report, with appendices, 
 covering the subjects of reciprocal trade, the navigation of the Saint 
 Lawrence, and the fisheries. {Rep. No. 4, Ho. Jieps., 32d Cong., 2d sess.) 
 On the 2d February, 1853, Hon. D. L. Seymour, chairman of 
 Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, submitted 
 to Mr. Everett the draught of a bill referred to in the foregoing, with a 
 view to being informed how far pen«ling negotiations authorize the belief 
 that the British government and provinces are prepared, on their part, 
 to give effect to such a bill. {The bill is printed in Appendix to Congress- 
 ional Globe, 32d Cong., 2d sess., p. 198.) 
 
 On the 4th February, 1853, Mr. Everett re])lled that the bill contained 
 the most important provisions of au arrangement between the countries ; 
 but that the British minister, under his theu existing instructions, was 
 not authorized to conclude a treaty, corresponding in all respects with 
 tlie bill ; and suggested that, for the sake of avoiding the evils of leav- 
 ing the fishery question unadjusted. Congress limit its action to the 
 passage of a short bill, referring to the fisheries alone, providing that 
 whenever the President shall issue his proclamation that United States 
 fishermen are admitted to a full participation in the colonial fisheries, 
 
 ISM, Fell. a. 
 
gi:nj:rai. appendix. 
 
 2!)5 
 
 K>}, I).' 
 
 HVl, V,-h. T. 
 
 colonial tish sliall Itc admitted duty free into tlu' United States. Siicli 
 I)ill to l)e merely temimrary. {Report, Hook, rol. (J, p. 41)2.) 
 
 Mr. Everett, in an instruction of the 4tU December, 18r»2, to 
 Mr. Ingersoll, wrote that some progress was made by Mr. Web- 
 ster in preparations to negotiate with Mr. C'rampton on the fisheries and 
 <.'omrnercial reciprocity. President still desirous that negotiation should 
 procee<l ; and it would be taken up as soon as possible. 
 
 President Fillmore sent to Congress, on the 7th l*Y'bruary, 
 1833, a message, inclosing report from Secretary of State, giv- 
 ing tiie state of the pending negotiation, whicli he, Mr. Everett, said had 
 been dilligently pursued; reported the willingness of IJritish govern- 
 ment to arrange the lishery (jnestion. Kefers to desire for reciprocal 
 free trade. 
 
 Kefers also to a resolution on the subject which passed the House some 
 time previously, and to the attention |)aid to the subject by Congress. 
 Time necesvsarily to be consumed in the negotiation in consequence of 
 necessity of liritisli minister referring to London for instructions, would 
 probably render impossible the conclusion of a comprehensive arrange- 
 ment that session. Meantime recommends that a bill admitting provin- 
 cial fish free, on condition that United States fishermen are admitted to 
 full participation of provincial fisheries, be passed that session. (Ho. 
 RcpH., E.r, Doc. 40, 32f/ Cong., 2(1 ness.) 
 
 lOtli June, 18.">3, Mr. JMarcy, in a note to Mr. Crampton, 
 acknowledges receipt of a memorandum indicating additional 
 subjects which IJritish government desires to iiave brought into pending 
 negotiation relative to fisheries and reciprocity trade. J)eenied prefer- 
 able to restrict negotiation to the objects already under discussion, 
 though no objection exists to including other matters when obviously 
 connected with these objects. (Rcconi of notes to lirit. Leg'n, vol. 7, p. 
 .307.) 
 
 The memorandum referred to is not on file. 
 
 In the summer of 1853, Mr. Marcy discussed with Mr. Cranii)ton the 
 questions involved in the propose<l treaty ; but no reconl exists 
 in this Department indicating the nature of those discussions, 
 exce[)t a note of September 1, 1S.">3, from Mr. Marcy to Mr. Crampton, 
 submitting a projet of the treaty. 
 
 Says his comments will be brief, because his views have been already 
 presented in conferences. 
 
 Says the third article is a new one, inserted tj bring in northwest 
 coast of British possessions. 
 
 l)y second article of projet heretofon^ submitted l)y British govern- 
 ment, and by the same article of that submitted to Mr. Crampton, and 
 by him referred to his government, no restriction made to any part of 
 United States coasts ; therefore it is but fair to open Pacific coast of 
 British possessions to United States fishermen. lias introduced in 
 article 2 a clause excepting coast of Florida, not on account of value of 
 fisheries, but apprehended interference with slave population by free 
 blacks from Bahamas, and partly also from apprehen«led interference 
 with rights of wreckers. Has excepted also shell-fish, to prevent misap- 
 prehension. Has amended the expi'ession in the first article of the British 
 draught, which prohibited UnitedStatesfishermenfrom interfering "with 
 the operations of the British tishermen," so that it will read: Provided, 
 that in so doing they do not interfere with the rights of private property, 
 or with British fishermen in the peaceable use of any part of said coast in 
 their occupancy, «&c. Proposes modification of second article, and to 
 
 •CA 
 
 '•isiJ 
 
 -m 
 
296 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 ui ' 
 
 
 specify the rivers ami eatuariea which are to be exchided from opera- 
 tions of the first and secMjnd articles. 
 
 " In botli projefs before submitted, Newfoundland was omitted from 
 the enumeration of the possessions to which treaty applied." Has in- 
 cluded it now. 
 
 The third article of the British draught, requiring the abandonment 
 of our bounty system, is omitted, because we could not abandon the 
 bounty to cod-fisheries.* It gives no advantage to our herring and 
 mackerel fishermen, the classes affected by the in-shore clauses of the 
 treaty, over the British fishermen of the same classes. The bounty is 
 given to certain deep-sea fishermen only, to countervail the duties 
 charged by the United States on salt, (30 per cent, ad valorem.) 
 
 Keciprocal clause as to canals would be nugatory, as United States 
 own none. 
 
 Free registration of provincial-built vessels not admissible, for obvious 
 reasons, which were stated, pp. 387, 388 of record. 
 
 Proposed privilege of clearance of British vessels from ports in 
 United States to ports on Pacific Coast would be unconstitutional. 
 
 Has excluded from the free list all manufactures aiul books. 
 
 Points out the necessity for caring for the interests of the Southern 
 and Southwestern States in making the list of free articles. Has on 
 that ground added rice, tar, pitch, and turpentine. 
 
 Proposes to omit coal from free list, in return for which United States 
 will omit leaf tobacco and unrefined sugar. 
 
 Furs included on free list as a concession deserving an equivalent. 
 
 The follow ing is a copy of the projet : 
 
 I'KO.IET OF TREATY. 
 
 The Gdvernnicnt of the United States being e(|iially desiroiiH with Her Majesty the 
 Queen of Great Britain to avoid further misunderstanding between their respective 
 citizens and subjects in regard to the extent of the right of fishing on the coasts of 
 British North Aiueri<?a, secured to each by the first artichi of a couvontion between 
 the lJnite«l States and Her Britannic JIajesty's govern... 'ut, signed at London on the 
 20th of October, 1818; and being also desirous to reguhite tluj commerce and naviga- 
 tion between their respective territories and people, and more especially between Her 
 Majesty's possessions in North America and the United States, in such numner as to 
 render the same reciprocally beneficial and satisfactory, iuive I'espeetively named 
 plenipotentiaries, &c., «fcc,, who have agreed upon tlie foUowiog articles: 
 
 AltTlCLE I. 
 
 It is agreed by the high contracting parties that, in addition to the liberty secured 
 to American fishernuni by the above-named convention of October 20, 1818, of taking, 
 curing, aiul drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American Colonies therein 
 defined, the inhabitants of the Unite<l States shall have, in common with the subjects 
 of Her Britannic Miijesty, the liberty to take iish of every kind, except shell-fisli, on 
 the sea-coasts and shores, and in thy bays, harbors, and creeks of Canada, New Bruns- 
 wick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and of the several islands 
 thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with per- 
 mission to land upon the coast and shores of those colonies and the islan«ls thereof, and 
 also upon the Mag«lalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their 
 fish ; provided that in so doing they do not interfere with the rights of private prop- 
 erty, or with British fishermen in tlie peaceable use of any part of said coast iu their 
 occupancy for the same purpose. 
 
 It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty shall not extend to the right of 
 fishing iu the estuarieS and rivers hereinafter designated ; that is to say, 
 
 which right is reserved exclusively for British fishermen. 
 
 AUTICLE II. 
 
 It is agreed by the high contracting parties that British subjects shall have, in c(ftn- 
 mou with the citizens of the United States, the liberty to take fisii of every kind, ex- 
 
 • Bounties abolished by reveuije act of 28th July, l8Gt). 
 
OENKRAL APPENDIX. 
 
 297 
 
 * '& 
 
 cept NlitOlfihli, on tlio Hpa-coaMts iiiid shores of tlio Uiiit<!d .Statt-H, (nxdept tbo coaHts of 
 the Statu of Florida and thu adjac«>nt islandH,) and un thu shoroa of theHuveral ishindti 
 boloiigiii); thereto, and in thu bays, liarburH, and creeks of thu United States andof tho 
 said isiands, without being restricted to any distance from tliu sliore ; with perniissiou 
 to laud upon tliu coasts of the United States and of the ishuids aforesaid, (except the 
 coast of Florida and thu adjacent islands,) for the purpose of drying their nets and 
 curing their tish ; provided that in so doing they do not interfere with the rights of 
 private property, or with the Hshennen of thu United States iu the use uf any part of 
 the said coasts, in their occupation for thu same ])urpose. 
 
 It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty sinill not extend to the right of 
 tishing in thu rivers and estuaries of thu United States hereinafter designated ; that is 
 to say, 
 
 which right is reserved exclusively for American iishermen. 
 
 AUTICLE III. 
 
 It is agreed that the reciprocal rights and privileges granted to the citizens and sub- 
 jects of the high contracting parties in thu two foregoing articles (hrst and second) 
 shall, to thu full extent therein conceded, bu enjoyed by them, respectively, to take, 
 dry, and cure tish uf any kind, excui>t sliell-iish, on thu sea-coasts and shores ; on the 
 continental territories and possessions of either {tarty ; on the coasts of thu Pacific 
 Ocean, and in \\w bays, harbors, ami creeks of the said territories and jiossessions ; and 
 on thu coasts and shores of thu adjacent islands belonging to either Irarty, without be- 
 ing restricted to any <listanco from thu shores. 
 
 AllTICLK IV. 
 
 It is agreed that thu arti(!les enumerated in the schedule hereunto annexed, being 
 the growth ami produce of the aforesaid British Colonies or of the United States, shall 
 be admitted into each country, respectively, free of duty. 
 
 Schiihile. 
 
 Grain, flour, and breadstull's of all kinds. 
 Animals of all kinds. 
 Fresh, smoked, and salted mt^ats. 
 Cotton-wool, seeds, vegetables, j 
 Undried fruits, dried fruits. 
 Fish of all kinds. 
 Poultry. 
 
 Hides, furs,^kins, or tails, undressed. 
 Stone and marble in its crude or nuwroiight state. 
 Mutter, cheese, tallow. 
 Lard, horns, manures. 
 Ores of metals of all kinds. 
 Pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes. 
 
 Timber and lumber of all kinds: round, hewed, and sawed; luauufactjred in whole 
 or in part. 
 Firewood. 
 
 Plants, shrubs, and trees. 
 Pelts, wool. 
 Fish-oil. 
 
 Rice, broom-corn, bark. 
 Gypsum, ground or unground. 
 Hewn or wrought buhr-stoues. 
 Dye-stufts. 
 Flax, hemp, and tow, unmanufactured. 
 
 AUTICLK V. 
 
 It is agreed that the citizens and inhabitants of thu United States shall have the 
 right to navigate the river Saint Lawrence and the canals in Camida, used as the 
 means of communicating with thu gn^at lakes and the Atlantic Ocean, with their ves- 
 sels, boats, and crafts as fully and freely as the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, 
 subject only to the same tolls and other assessments as now are or may hereafter be 
 exacted of Her Majesty's said stibjects ; it being understood, however, that the British 
 government retains the right of suspending this privilege, on giving due notice thereof 
 to the Government of the United States. 
 
 It is further agreed that if at any time the British government should exercise the 
 8jud reserved right the Government of thu United States shall have the right of sus- 
 pending, if it think tit, the operations of Article IV, of the present treaty, for so long aa 
 the suspension of the free navigation of the river Saint Lawrence or the canals may 
 continue. 
 
 1"^ J| 
 
 ■1 
 
298 
 
 GENKKAI, ArPKNDlX. 
 
 ril 
 
 , ■> • J 
 
 w 
 
 ■i'M 
 
 U' 
 
 I 
 
 15 
 
 P 
 
 I j) . 
 
 ,/ - 
 
 
 It \H also unit'fd tliiit tlin ciUztijis ninl iiiliiilMtuntH of tin' lliiih-il Statt-n slmll liiiva 
 tlio riglit to tlio t'vtw iiijviniition of tho riv(>r Saint .Folin, in the in'oviinc of New llniiiH- 
 wick, m filly ami frcoly as tlin miUJtictM of Htsr Hiitiliiiiio MaJoKty, ami that id t-xport 
 iliity or nny otlior tliity Hliall ho Itn'ind on liimhi-r or tiinhur of any klml ciit on that 
 portion of the. American territory in tho Htato of Maino, ami wati-rod hy tho ri vor Miiint 
 .lohn an<l itH trihntarioH, ami lloatoil down that rivor to tho Hca, wIumi tiio Munio is sliip- 
 pcd to tho l.'nitod Status from tho province of Now Ihnnswlok. 
 
 AnTici.K VI. 
 
 Tho prosont treaty shall tako olToct whonovor tin- laws roi|iiinil to cany it into oper- 
 ation shall liavo boon piissod l»y tho Imporial rarliuinont of (Jn^at Britain ami tho Hrit- 
 ish provincial assoinhlios on tho oim hand, and liy f ho (^on;;ross of tho llnitod Htatos 
 on tho othor ; and shall ho himlin^ only so lon^ as said laws, whothor now oxistiny or 
 hcroaftor to ho onaotod, shall remain ill forco; and whonovor tho Imi)orial I'.irliiiinont 
 or tho provinoiul assoinhlios on tho ono haml, and tin* C<>n;iross of tho I'liitod Statos 
 on tho othor, shall lojioal said laws, or oitlior of thoiii, this treaty shall eoaso to he 
 binding on tho (ttlior party. Either party may, howovor, afti'r tho expiration of sovon 
 years, torininatu tho said treaty, by K'^inK to' tho other one year's iiotieo of its inten- 
 tion to have tho same terminated ami become inoperative. 
 
 i*.4 Inn, , ^" ^''^ '''^'* "^ Juiie, IS.lt, the treaty was sio;iKMl by Mr. Marcy 
 * " ""' ' siiid Lord Eltfin, uiul on tho LMHh of the same inontii siibiuittell 
 
 to the Senate: 
 The foHowiiig is a copy of the message ami treaty as subnntted. 
 
 To the Senate of the United Staten : 
 
 I transmit to the Senatt! for its coiisidoration, with a view to ratili(!ation, a treaty 
 extending the rijjht of lishinj», and roynlatiiifj the eommoreo and iiavi;jatioii botweon 
 Her liritannic Majesty's posessions in North America and tho Unittid .States, concluded 
 in this citv on the r)th instant, between the United States and Ui'r IJiitannio Miijosty. 
 
 FRANKMN PIEKUE. 
 
 WAsiiiNtiTON, JiDie 20, 1854. 
 
 The Government of the United States being equally desirous with Her Majesty the 
 Qneen of Gr(!at liritain to avoid further misnnderstandiiii^ between their respective 
 eitizens and snbjects, in regard to tho extent of the right of fishing on the coasts of 
 British North America, secured to each by Article I of a convention between the United 
 States and Great iiritain, signed at London, on the 5jOth day of October, 1818 ; and 
 being also desirous to regulate tho commerce and navigation between their respective 
 territories and j)eople, and more, especially between Her Majesty's possessions in North 
 America and tho United States, in such manner as to render the same reciprocally 
 beneficial and satisfactory, have, respectively, named plenipotentiaries to confer and 
 agree thereupon — that is to say, the President of the United Stat«^s of Ainori(;a, William 
 L. Marcy, Secretary of State of the United States, and Her Majesty the Queen of tho 
 United Kingdom of Groat Britain and Ireland, .Tamos, Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, 
 Lord Bruce and Elgin, a peer of the United Kingdom, knight of the most ancient and 
 most noble Order of the Thistle, and governor-general in and over all Her Britannic 
 Majesty's provinc(!s on the continent of North America, and in and over tho island of 
 Prince P^dward ; who, after having communicated to each other their respective full 
 powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles : 
 
 Airrici.E I. 
 
 It is agreed by the high contracting piirties that in addition to the liberty secured to 
 the United States fishermen by the above-mentioned convention of October 20, 1818, of 
 taking, curing, and drying fisii on certain coasts of the British North American Colo- 
 nies, therein «lefined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with 
 tho subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty to tako flsh of every kind, (»xcept 
 nhell-fish, on the sea coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of Canada, 
 New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and of the several islands there- 
 unto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore ; with permis- 
 sion to land upon tiie coasts and shores of those colonies and the islands thereof, and 
 also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their 
 fish; provided that, in so doing, they do not interfere with the rights of private prop- 
 erty or with British fishermen in tho peaceable use of any part of the said coast in 
 , their occupancy for the same purpose. 
 
 It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to the sea fisheries, 
 and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and all fisheries in rivers and the mouths of 
 rivers, are hereby reserved, exclusively, for British fisherman. 
 
 And it is further agreed that, in order to prevent or settle iiuy disputes as to the 
 places to which the reservation of exclusive right to British fishermen, contained in 
 
(il'.NKKAl- AriM:M»IX. 
 
 Ofui 
 
 ^ ( ' I r 
 
 
 ii'W Hi'llllH- 
 
 lilt <'X|)nrt 
 If on tliiit 
 
 ivcr JSiiiiit 
 III' is Hliip- 
 
 iiitti o|>i'i'- 
 <l tli(> Mrit- 
 U'4 .Stiiten 
 'xistiii;; or 
 '.ii'liitinitnt 
 
 wasn to 1)1^ 
 
 II of MUVCIl 
 
 it» inh^n- 
 
 r. Marcy 
 il>initt('<l 
 
 n'i- 
 
 ;('(!. 
 
 1, a treaty 
 
 1 l)«tVV«llll 
 
 coiiuliidcd 
 I MajuHty. 
 lEKCE. 
 
 ajt'sty the 
 lospootivo 
 o coantH of 
 Axfi Unitert 
 1818; and 
 respoctivti 
 s ill North 
 ciprocjilly 
 !oiifi<r and 
 I, William 
 nm of tlio 
 incardine, 
 loiuiit and 
 Uri tannic 
 itslaiid of 
 ctive full 
 I : 
 
 tficnred to 
 I), 1818, of 
 can Oolo- 
 luon with 
 id, except 
 f Canada, 
 ids thore- 
 h jiermis- 
 M'eof, and 
 fiiig their 
 ate prop- 
 I coast in 
 
 flshorics, 
 iiDiiths of 
 
 as to the 
 tained iu 
 
 tliirt artirlr, and tint nf li->hi<rinjiii of tin* I'liilrd SlatcH, I'ont.aiiii'd in ilii> iicnI .siiccned- 
 in^ arliclc, apply, i icji of tin- iil;:;li contracliiiK parties, on the application of eillt<>r to 
 llie other, shall, within six niunths thereafter, appoint a eoniniissioner. Tint said coin- 
 inissioners, hefoie proceeding to any hiisiness. Hhall make and miIisii ilte a soliMiiii doida- 
 lation that they will impartially and carefnlly examine and dreide, to the hest of their 
 indn"""it. imd accordiii^ito Jnsfiee and eipiity, witlmnt fear, favor, or atlection to their 
 iiwii country, upon all siieh places as are intended to lie reserved and e\eliidt<d from 
 the common liberty of tishiitif nnder this and the next sneceediiij; article, and such «U'c- 
 laration shall he entered on the record of their proceedings. 
 
 The commissioner shall name some third in'i'sun to act a>* an arbitrator or umpire in 
 any case or (-ase.- on wliicdi they may themselves diU'er in o|iinioii. If they should not 
 lie able to a;;i'ce upon the name of snch third person, they shall etch name a person, 
 and it shall be determined by lot which of the two perso is so named »hall be the arbi- 
 trator or umpire in cases of dilVerence or disaKieement between the ctmiinissioiieis. 
 'i'ln> jtersoii so to be chosen to he arbitrator or umpire shall, before proceedin>; to act. as 
 such in any case, make and snbscrilte a solemn declaration in a form si nilar to that 
 which shall already have been made and subscribed by the commissi(Uicrs, which shall 
 he entered on the record id' their i>r(u;eediii;fs. In the event of the death, abseiicis or 
 incapacity of either <d' the commisdoners, or ol' the arbitrator or umpire, or of their 
 or his omitf in;;, decliniiiij, or (M-a-iiiij; to act as smh coiumisiioner, arhitr.itor, or umpire, 
 another and <lilferent person shall be a|)poinli'd or named as aforesaid to act as siudi 
 cDiiimissioner, arbitrator, or umpire, in tiie jdaci^ and stead of the person so ori;;inally 
 appointed or named as aforesaid, and sli.ill make ami subscribe such declaration as 
 aioroHaid. 
 
 .Siudi commissioners shall proceed to examine ihe (M)asts of the North American prov- 
 iu(!es and of the United States, embraced within the pro\ isions ol the lirst and socinid 
 artiidesof this treaty, and shall desi;;nato the places reserved by the said articles from 
 the common right of jishiiig tliercin. 
 
 The decision of the commissioners, and of the arbitrator or I'lnpiri', shall ho given 
 in writing in each ease, and shall be signed by tlnMii r(!S|»ectivtd> , 
 
 The high contracting parties hereby solemnly engage to consider tln^ decision of tli« 
 commissioners conjointly, or of the arbitrator or niiipirc, as the case maybe, iiH ahno- 
 Intely linal and conclusive iu each case decided upon by them or him respectively. 
 
 Artici.k II, 
 
 It is agreed by the liigh contracting parties that British subjects shall have, in coin- 
 nion with the citizens of the United States, the liberty to take tisli of every kind, except 
 slitdl-ti- .on the (lasteni sea-coasts and shores of the United .States, north of the Ihltli 
 parallel of north latitude, :ind on the shoi-es of the sc^viumI islainls theriMinlo adjacent, 
 and in the bays, harbors, and creeks <d' the said st^a-coasts and shores of the Unitcil 
 St.ites, ami of the said islands, without bidiig restricted to any distance from the shore, 
 with periiiissiou to laud upon the said coasts of the Unitetl States and of the islands 
 iiforesaid, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing tlieir tish : proviih'd, that iu 
 so doing, they do not ii.terfiue with tln^ rights of private property, or with the tisher- 
 nien of the United States in the peaceable use of any part of the said coasts in their 
 occupancy for the same purpose. 
 
 It is understood that the above-meutioiied lilierty applies solely to the soa-lishcry, 
 and that sahniui and shad tisheries, and all tisherie.s in rivers and months of rivers, aro 
 liei'by reserved exclusively for Hshermeii of the United States. 
 
 AitricLK III. 
 
 ft is .agreed that the articles eiiui icrated in the schedule heienntn annexed, lacing 
 tliiA growth and produce of the afcuesaid Hritisli colonies, or of the United Statics, ghail 
 he admitted into each country respectively free of duty. 
 
 Schedule. 
 
 Grain, flonr, and hreadstuti's of all kinds. 
 
 Animals of all kinds. 
 
 Fresh, smoked, and salted meats. • 
 
 Cotton-wool, seeds, and vegtitables. 
 
 Undried fruits, dried fruits. 
 
 Fish of all kinds. 
 
 I'roducts offish and of other creatures living in the water. 
 
 Poultry, eggs, 
 
 Hides, furs, skins, or tails iii 'rcssed. 
 
 Stone or marble, iu its crude r uuwrought state. 
 
 Slate. 
 
 IJutter, cheese, tallow. 
 
 Lard, borus, luanures. 
 
 'I 
 
 "jha 
 
300 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 •H. 
 
 Ores of metals of all kinds. 
 Coal. 
 
 Pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes. 
 
 Timber and lumber of all kinds, round, heweil, and sawed, uniiianiifactured in \\ 
 or in part. 
 Firewood. 
 
 Plants, Hhrnbs, and trees. 
 Pelts, wool. 
 Fish-oil. 
 
 Rice,broon»-corn, and bark. 
 Gypsum, ground or unground. 
 
 H»^wn,or wrought, or uuwrouglit bnhi or grindstones. 
 Dye-stutls. 
 
 Flax, hemp, and tow, unmannfiictured. 
 Unmanufactiued tobacco. 
 Ra<;s. 
 
 hole 
 
 1^.'. 
 
 Aktici.k IV. 
 
 It is agreed that the citizens and inhabitants of the United States shall have the 
 right to navigate the St. Lawrence, and the canals in Cana'la, used as the means ot 
 communicating between the great lakes and the Atlantic Ocean, with their vessels, 
 boats, and crafts, as fully and freely as the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, subject 
 only to the same tolls and other assessments as now are, or may hereafter be, exacted 
 of Her Majesty's said subjects ; it being understood, however, that the British govern- 
 ment retains the right of suspending this privilege on giving duo notice thereof to the 
 Government of the United States. 
 
 It is further agreed that if at any time the British government should exercise the 
 said reserved right, the Goveinment of the United States shall have the right of sus- 
 pending, if it think lit, the operation of Article III of the present treaty, in so far as 
 the province of Canada is atfected thereby, for so long as the suspension of the five 
 navigation of the river St. Lawrence or the canals may continue. 
 
 It is further agreed that British subjects shall have the right freely to navigate Lake 
 Michigan, with their vessels, boats, and crafts, so long as the privilege of nuvigatinj; 
 the river St. Lawrence, secured to American citizens by the above clause .^f the present 
 article, shall continue; and the Government of the United States further engages to 
 urge upon the State governments to secure to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty 
 the use of the several State canals on terms of e«iuality with the inhabitants of the 
 United States. 
 
 And it is further agreed that no export duty, or other duty, slnill be levied on lumber 
 or timber of any kind, cut on that portion of the Anu^rican territory in the State of 
 Maine watered by the river Saint John and its tributaries, and Hoated down that river 
 to the sea, when the same is shipped to the United States from tho province of New 
 Brunswick. 
 
 Artici.f. V. 
 
 The present treaty shall take ettect as soon as the laws recpiired to carry it into op- 
 eration shall have been passed by the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain, and by tlie 
 provincial parliaments of those of the British North American colonies which are 
 affected by this treaty on the one hand, and by the Congress of the United States on 
 the other. Such assent having been given, the treaty shall remain in force for ten 
 years from the date at which it may come into operation, and further, until the expira- 
 tion of tw»'lve months after either of the high contracting parties shall give notice to 
 tho otluu" of its wish to termiimte the same ; each of the high contracting parties being 
 at liberty to give such notice to the other at the end of tho said term of ten years, oi 
 at any time afterward. 
 
 It is clearly understood, however, that this stipulation is not intended to afltect the 
 reservation made by Article IV of the present treaty with regard to the right of tem- 
 porarily suspending the operation of Articles III and IV thereof. 
 
 Arth I,E VI. 
 
 And it is hereby further agreed that the provisions and stipulations of the foregoing; 
 articles shall extend to the Island of Newfoundland, so far as they are applicable to 
 that colony. But if the Imperial Parliament, the provincial parliament of Newfound- 
 land, or tilt' Congress of the United States shall not embrace in their laws enacted for 
 carrying this treaty into ett'ect the colony of Newfoundland, then this article shall he 
 of no effect, but Mie omission to make provision by law to give it efft>et, by either of 
 the legislative bodies aforesaid, shall not in any way impair the remaining articles iif 
 thiB treaty. 
 
nrctl ill whole 
 
 shall have the 
 the means ot 
 their vessels, 
 jesty, siihjfct 
 ;r be, exacted 
 ritish {toverii- 
 theieof to the 
 
 [1 exercise the 
 1 rif^ht of sus- 
 y, ill so far as 
 uu of the free 
 
 avigatc Lake 
 >f iiavifjatiiig 
 f the present 
 in '^tifrafjes to 
 uinic Majesty 
 litaiits of the 
 
 ed on lumber 
 1 the State of 
 wii that river 
 ?^iiice of New 
 
 ry it into op- 
 11, and by the 
 es which are 
 ed States on 
 force for ten 
 :il the expiru- 
 ;ive notice to 
 parties bein^ 
 ten years, or 
 
 to aifect the 
 rij;ht of teui- 
 
 the fore<j;oini; 
 a]i))li cable to 
 »f New foil 11(1- 
 s enacted for 
 icie siiall he 
 , by either of 
 ijl articles of 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 AUTICLK Vn. 
 
 301 
 
 The present treaty shall be duly ratified, and the mutual exchange of ratifications 
 shall take place iu Washington, within six months from the date hereof, or earlier if 
 possible. 
 
 In faith whereof we, the respective plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty and 
 have hereunto affixed our seals. 
 
 Done, in triplicate, at Washington, the fifth day of June, anno Domini one thousand 
 right hundred and fiftv-four. 
 
 W. L. MARCY. [r.. s.] 
 
 ELGIN & KINCARDINE, [i.. s ] 
 
 Tlie SiMiati', l>y a resolution of the 2(1 Aujiust, 1854, sanctione<l tlip 
 latiflcatiou of tlie treaty as al»ove presented witliout aiuiMul- a.,..-, km. 
 nieut. 
 
 It was ratified Aii<4iist 9, 185-1, and exchanged September !>. ,V';,T,.;,V;I.r » 
 18ol. 
 
 On the 17th Mareh, 18G5, Mr. Adams, the minister of the United 
 States at London, under instructions from the Secretary ot 
 State, jfave otticial notice that the tisaty would terminate at 
 the exi»iration of one year from that date. 
 
 On the 17th of March, 18G(), tlui President issue<l a proclamation de- 
 ciarino; the treaty terminated. ismi.M.r n. 
 
 Sir Edward Thornton, on the 12ti\ of .Inly, 18G1), handed to .Mr. Fish 
 a nuMuoraudum of basis of negotiation, proposing : im.,>. .r-.iy i* 
 
 1. Kenewal of the fishery privileges as under reciprocity treaty of 
 1854, with such extensions as altered circumstances may recpiire, on con- 
 dition that arrangement for trade satisfactory to Canada is made. 
 
 2. Subject to same condition, same rights of navigation of Saint Law- 
 rence as under reciprocity treaty, and corresponding rights on other 
 inland waters of the British possessions in Xorth America, exteiuled 
 to citizens of the United States, on simil r rights being extended to 
 Canada as to the United States waters, Canada to enter into arrange- 
 ments with a view of improving access to the ocean by enlargement and 
 deepening of the canals on receiving assurance of the permanency of 
 the commercial intercourse proposed. 
 
 3. Subject 10 same condition, Canada will consider the questions of 
 mutual opening of coasting trade ; 
 
 Liberal und reciprocal arrangement of patent and copyright laws; 
 Providing for extradition of persons committing any crimes but those 
 of a political natnve. 
 
 4. Transit trade to be iiee and unrestricted, with no other charges 
 than nee ssary to protect revenue. This subject to be regulated by 
 treaty o: legislation. 
 
 5. Exchange, during such period as may be agre h1 upon, of the pro- 
 ductions of the sea, f(»rest, mines, and agriculture, and animals and 
 their products, on recipr(;cal terms as nearly free as possible. Schedule 
 of treaty o.'' 1854 basis of new arrangement, but may be added to by 
 both and end>race certain manufactures ; duty, if any, to have for basis 
 internal-revenue tax of the United States. 
 
 (i. Canada to adjust excise duty on spirits, beer, tobacco, and othi^r 
 cognate articles, on best revenue standard to be agreed on by both par 
 ties; Canatla to do all she can to prevent illicit trade between the United 
 States and Canada. { Volume of noieti from Britinh Legation, Jnli/ 12, 18G'.>.) 
 
 Seventeenth March, 1870, Sir E. Thornton wrote to Mr. Fish 
 a private and confidential letter. He had a reply to inipiiries 
 made at Mr. Fish's suggestion, whether the Canadian government wonhl 
 grant the free navigation of the VVelland Canal and Saint l^awrence. 
 
 iWl 
 
 u 
 
 % 
 
ft'- 
 
 I* 
 
 
 mi-: 
 
 ,! 1 
 
 
 302 
 
 GENERAL API'ENDIX. 
 
 If (* 
 
 u- ♦ 
 
 
 aDd put tlie «;aiial into a proper state for navigation, in return to- a 
 considerable reduction in the iuiport duties in tliis country on lumber, 
 salt, tish, and coal, or a jtossible abolition of all duty on the tirst three 
 articles. In reply, Canadian government regrets absence from th«^ 
 proposal of products of the most populous sections of Dominion. Of 
 the four articles immed, without knowing how much the duty on coal 
 could be diminished, they consider that the free importation of fish 
 would be tlie only satisfactory part of the proposal. 
 
 Incloses two schedules which JVlr. Fish suggested would be necessary ; 
 one a free list, the other of articles which might have to be subject to 
 certain rates of duty. 
 
 Schedule No. 1 is a free list; No. 2 a list of articles to pay a certain 
 import duty in both countries. If they are adopted by United States, 
 or propose not unacceptable raoditications, iiee navigation of the Saint 
 Lawrence and the use of the canals will be granted; and he is author 
 ized to declare that it is the policy of Canada to maintain tlie greatetii 
 efliciency in canals. Asks early answer. 
 
 /Schedule 1. 
 Hides and pelts. 
 
 Furs, skins, and tails, (undressed.) 
 Fish, fresh. 
 Eggs. 
 
 Timber and lumber, round, hewed, sawed, unmanufactured in whole 
 or in part. 
 Pitch, tar, turpentine, and ashes. 
 Firewood. 
 
 IMants, bulbs, trees, and shrubs. 
 Salt. 
 
 Broom-corn. 
 Bristles. 
 
 Ores and minerals of all kinds. 
 Cotton and wool. 
 Stone and marble, (unwrought.) 
 Slate. 
 
 Gypsum, unground. 
 Flax, hemp, and tow, (uiKhessed.) 
 Unmanufactured tobacco, 
 llags. 
 
 Uuhr or grind stones. 
 I>ye stutVs. 
 Horns. 
 Manures. 
 Fish-oil. 
 
 Clays, earths, and gravel. 
 Emery. 
 
 Plaster of I'aiis, (not ground or calcined.) 
 Resin. 
 Sand. 
 
 Tjinners' bark, and extracts thereof. 
 Wool. 
 
 iichedule 2. 
 
 Animals of all kinds, ad valorem,T) per cent. 
 
 Poultry, ad valorem, 5 per cent. 
 
 Fish, viz; Mackerel, per barrel, '^l ; salmon, per barrel, *! ; herrings, 
 
iturn to" a 
 n lumber, 
 tirst three 
 from tilt* 
 in ion. Of 
 ity on coal 
 on of &»h 
 
 leeessary : 
 subject to 
 
 f ii certain 
 ed States, 
 f tbe Sainc 
 is author 
 le greatest 
 
 .1 in whoU- 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 303 
 
 and all other tish in barrels, oO cents ; fish not in barrels, and not other- 
 wise described, ad valorem, 5 per cent. 
 
 Meats, fresh, salted, and smoked, per pound, 1 cent. 
 
 Butter, per pound, 2 cents. 
 
 Cheese, i)er jwund, li couts. 
 
 Lard, per pound, 1 cent. 
 
 Tallow, per i)ound, 1 cent. 
 
 Grease, and {iiease scraps, ad valorem, 5 per cent. 
 
 Fruits, green, drioil, and undried, ad valorem, 5 per cent. 
 
 Seeds, not including cereals, ad valorem, 5 per cent. 
 
 May and straw, ad valorem, ~> per cent. 
 
 IJran, ad valorem, ."> per cent. 
 
 Vegetables, including potatoes and other roots, ad valon ni, ~> ]wr 
 cent. 
 
 Hops, per pound, 5 cents. 
 
 Wheat, per bushel, 4 cents. 
 
 Barley ami rye, i)er bushel, .J cents. 
 
 Oats, buckwheat, and Indian corn, per bushel, '2 cents. 
 
 Pease and beans, per bushel, li cents. 
 
 Flour of wheat or rye, per barrel, 2o cents. 
 
 Indian and buckwheat meal, and oatmeal, per barrel, 15 cents. 
 
 Coal, per ton, 50 cents. 
 
 List of appendices, icith description of contents. 
 
 No. 1. Statistics of trade with provinces for certain, years, in articles 
 on free list of reciprocity treaty. 
 
 No. 2. Keport of Committee on Commerce. House of J{e])re- 
 sentatives, on tho operation of the treaty of 1S51. I'ointing 
 out defects and suggesting remedies. {Report A'o. 22, H. /i., 'Sith Contf., 
 'Id sess.) 
 
 No. 3. llepoit of Secretary of Treasury to House of Ilepresentative^, 
 in answer to a resolution, ])resenting statistics of trade w ith Canada, 
 &c., illustrative of the working of the treaty, the Canadian tariffs of 
 1810 and 1802, and the rates of toll in 1804 on the Canadian canals. 
 {Kv. Doc. Xo. ;}2, IL Zi'., 'SSth Cong., 1st sess.) 
 
 No. 4. A report of Hon. Israel T. Hatch upon commercial relations 
 with the British provinces and the comparative importance of American 
 and Canadian commen*ial channels of transportation of i)roperty from 
 the west to the sea-board. {Rv. Doc. No. 78, II. It, IVM/i Cong., 2d sess.) 
 
 No. 5. Keports by George W. lirega, esq., ui)on trade with the prov- 
 inces of British North America, the free navigation of the Saint Law- 
 rence and the Gulf lisheries. {Ex. Docs. Nos. 240 and 2J>5, IL R., -iOth 
 (Jong., 2d. sess.) 
 
 No. 0. Eeport of Hon. Israel T. Hatch upon the commercial relations 
 of the United States with the Dominion of Canada, to etuible Secretary 
 of Treasury to further answer House resolution Dth July, ]8()(i, calling 
 for a statement of the trade and commerce with the jnovinces, and a 
 statement of the revenue derived therefrom since the termination of 
 the treaty, and of all changes in the Canadian tarift's since that date, 
 also of comparative importance of American and Canadian channels of 
 transportation. {TJ.r. Doc. Xo. 3(>, IL R,, AOth Cong.. 3d sess.) 
 
 1HU2, Kill. 
 
 •. m 
 
 •fl 
 
 ; herrings. 
 
304 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 i> 
 
 o 
 
 >— I 
 Q 
 !^ 
 W 
 
 
 
 £■£ 
 
 SI 
 
 &.= 
 .5 s; 
 
 00 V. 
 
 a 5* 
 
 
 ?5» 
 
 It, ^d 
 
 S Cl 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 "5^ 
 
 5<5 
 
 •t'S « C 
 
 ■Sb^.2a 
 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 «! 
 
 H 
 
 p 
 
 u 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 •LI S !£ s W •H 34 ifi • o ■SI » ' « «- oi oi 3-. o | 55 oi 
 
 pfjT 1 I ; '. .cfiTw" r-x I aff ■ • —rf-f ,-•* . ^■' a 
 
 V n s( • • • o • ft 
 
 ^'^ : • I : • i • i \ "' 
 
 • I • t > • • I • 
 
 t t * ■ > * t * • 
 
 font*^i^ 1^ ifi Ci 'T '^ t^ '-o :£i ^ *-^ -^ ^ • OD cj" ^o^Jri" ■ • W" 
 
 (?> I- o 71 'r» TC ■^ to .-* to ?> — cs ?i ■* •»• ic I.': • -^ -t c» i o -^ < • tr 
 
 CO 1^5 *- «" *o 'o —* -H -. X !■: -* x- r^ r- ic ?* o > c ra c. < i- rs < < 01 
 
 r- 00 T* -^ I'- ?3 ?C i-O OQ F-4 ■V « i- C. *- i- CC d . I" "^ •- . I" OD > > (O 
 
 « ro ^ »" ^ T* »^ o ^ M r5 i cc <?» '^ ?:» t^ ) - • — « . o ■* • • n 
 
 co'^" ,-r ©f I III 
 
 H 
 
 01- 
 
 
 OD !■- i CI T 
 
 ■ ox t- o — — TJ « ■■£ • 51 Q • ir; 
 
 .-OS! 01 I- o -.a I- cij o . — « ■ X' 
 
 ■Tu-r erf -r 'a' a; o*" rf cv" 'L'^"'r" ■ cf 
 
 ■ orr T fNr; — ?<^« .ir. o .o 
 
 ■ 5£Mf-<rtC* — ^■•H .CI 
 
 ,00 
 1 1" n 
 
 CO o i- r- o iC 
 
 n -!■ II — C» C< 
 
 o — oo>« o 
 
 i « 'J 01 ^ 
 
 • CCS 
 
 IS- 
 
 . CIT 
 
 ■ n 
 
 ■ CO CI 
 
 ■ t~m 
 
 • n ^ 
 
 ■ CO — 
 
 ■ C-5 0D 
 
 ■l-G> • -^ 
 
 IS 
 
 s 
 
 it 
 
 I> 
 
 u 
 
 to 
 
 b« 
 
 c 
 
 65 
 
 d 
 
 'A 
 O 
 
 » 
 
 r-c> 
 
 ©*©! 
 
 •f o c» o CO I- --£ I- o T* r- 
 
 . -^ 'X o «x !■■;(?. o ro "» o o 
 
 • XX I" -r ro ?: T 1- -5* i*; o 
 
 'cTcT -i i-'xT 
 
 ■ c;2 
 
 CI ■ o 1- 
 
 r. ' o -r 
 X . r; CO 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 h 
 
 X 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 Cl CO Oi — »■* CO ■•H CI -- — I- CI • 
 
 J- CTi i!C (- 1- X — X I- f. o r; ■ 
 
 ou^^-rcii-rto a-, yi t t) ■ 
 
 Cl" ci oT ••T cf CO* o" >* irf co" cC cf • 
 
 CO tf7 C*5 I* — CC * fH — X CI • 
 
 X W i- ^' ' ' ^^ ^ — .^ . 
 
 
 :2 : ^ 
 
 . I" X CI 'CO 
 
 S. CO C-. »- ■CI 
 
 t. I~ O ■<t" ■CO 
 
 cf 2 ?:?:?: W- 
 
 t. . — C^ •»■ r-l — ^fc T* 
 II 1- — — — •- -O 
 
 !?. «"' 
 
 •-'cfV 
 
 CO * X ci 
 
 -tn 
 
 CO CC "^ ^ "^ '■" " " 
 
 CI CO t- :c — — — I- 
 
 & ?. CI i.'5 CO c. CI <-■ 
 
 ic — r-' fi .5" o' V cf 
 
 — t- CI CI « CO CI 
 
 L-^ re »rt CO 
 
 c 
 
 
 sio 
 
 -ri- 
 
 X ^ 
 
 "TX" 
 
 a o 
 t-o 
 
 ■ I- O •»■ PC 1?^ C "1" 
 
 1 1'" I- r: ^ Q CO r- 
 
 ■ o cr. r. M 3 I- 31 
 
 • i-'x CI co' x'sTi-" 
 
 . CO I* wi CI '* t- 
 
 • 1^ * r: T c. CI 
 
 ; O CO O « O M CO 
 
 . ic CO f— If: Q o CO 
 
 . X O — — n 'Tl- 
 
 • ii'-o'ci'cf -h'i-'cc" 
 
 -•c20xc!i-o ■» 
 
 X l^ i- C. l.C I.C -- ^ 
 
 •r *- X ir^ -» o ■n* rH 
 
 co-i-'^'cricx- o" 
 
 f- re -^ ?c CI o cc 
 
 ■^ p^ r: CI *-■ 
 
 cc o XJ 
 "»* t.-e s 
 
 !SS 
 
 ■ .-■xcorc^J- — 5i .— *o;?e*r ■^r 
 
 ■ c *- CI •— C* CI CO CO ■ ^ X « •?" .00 
 
 ■ 3 o — o o CO — i.e . c: i.c . I- 
 
 . CI *r CI •!• cT —" I*' -r . re" . rf 
 
 ■ ?Ct-i-T CI O^'O .T 
 
 rt X .1" -CI 
 
 . S CO CO iC — CI r; o 
 
 . O « X X -" X CO (- 
 
 . ?C O i^ :r. i-T » d 
 
 M .— ^ O • 
 
 0-. f I- p ■ 
 
 -J. i.- J- CI ■ 
 
 ■— "reco"^" . 
 
 CI Lc CI . 
 
 o . 
 
 l->rt I" -J 
 
 — if^ CI 1« 
 
 o .-■ 0-. I- 
 
 
 I- — i- 
 
 o r-. 
 
 ?} 
 
 k 
 Pi 
 
 , T. T. 
 
 
 09 d 
 
 5 
 
 &:a 
 
 t 2 
 
 ^- ►- c8 .- o ..^. ca 
 
 Cm — 
 
 ; c s 
 S « 
 
 Si 
 
 . 7' r;^ . 
 
 "Ox • 
 
 . ;: e 
 
 I c 2 »'■" 
 
 O X fc, 
 
 ^ - 5 -^ a 
 
 ; it ; 
 
 ■.5 i* 
 
 ■aV 
 
 as 
 
 I2 '-«-«" I l-is^.I-Jsi 
 
 ■M tp4 ,» (C -_ ij ij W ^5 vH T^^ ^z 
 
 u 
 
 ♦;» - -r GJ ^ f 5 , 
 
 tl £ tS * 2 .= -* 
 r*^ ; - *^ J3 **" -"" 
 
 
 ^wc*«J?H>"^;*H^xe;uH-^ScH^r( ffci^PH 
 
 
 . ■ « 
 
 S.3S 
 
 ' i 30 " 
 
 ■ .« p 
 
 • =*§ 
 ' =.9 
 
 14= 
 
 
 c 5 
 
 3 
 
 te 
 
 i<- 
 
 F*. r» ^ ^ 
 
o 
 is 
 
 
 if 
 
 CO 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 S 
 
 
 cs 
 
 IC 
 
 c 
 
 
 t*i 
 
 ?j 
 
 ■3 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 pu, 
 
 fS 
 
 ><» 
 
 
 u 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 « 
 
 PS 
 
 c 
 
 bC 
 
 c 
 
 
 be 
 
 a 
 
 
 o 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 COMPAKATIVE STATEMENT. 
 
 305 
 
 TahU showing the values of total exports from, and of total exports to, Canada and other 
 British North American possessions for each of the twelve fiscal years, (ended June 'iO,) 
 from 1858 to 1869, inclusive. 
 
 Oonntries. 
 
 1858. 
 
 1859. 
 
 18C0. 
 
 1S61. 
 
 1862. 
 
 1863. 
 
 Importa 
 
 Domestic exports 
 
 $15,800,519 
 
 19, 638. 9-.9 
 
 4, 012, 768 
 
 *19, 727, .551 
 
 21, 7(i9, 627 
 
 0, 384, 547 
 
 .J23, 8.U, 381 
 
 18, fi07, 429 
 
 4, 038, 899 
 
 823, 002, 9a3 
 
 18,88.3,715 
 
 3, 861, 898 
 
 ?19, 299, 995 
 
 18,0.52,012 
 
 2, 427, 103 
 
 324, 031, 264 
 
 28,029,110 
 
 2,051,920 
 
 Foreign exports 
 
 CountriBS. 
 
 18S4. 
 
 1805. 
 
 1860. 
 
 1867. 
 
 1868. 
 
 1869. 
 
 Imports 
 
 Domestic exports 
 
 Foreign exports 
 
 m, 922, 015 
 
 2J, 567, 221 
 
 2, 419, 926 
 
 ?3^, 820, 969 
 
 30, 455, 989 
 
 2, 097, 858 
 
 m. 714, 383 
 
 26, 874, 888 
 
 2, 481, 684 
 
 m, 604, 178 
 
 20, 548, 704 
 
 3, 774, 405 
 
 830, 302, 231 
 
 23,600,717 
 
 2, 061, 555 
 
 $32,090,314 
 
 20, 8H 1,786 
 
 3, 305, 446 
 
 20 H 
 
ir 
 
 V-XORTH\Vi:ST WATER BOUNDARY 
 
 SAN JUAN. 
 
 ANr JIE ISLAND OF 
 
 
 1 
 
 SYNOPSIS. 
 
 By the Ist jirticle of tlio treaty between the United States and Great 
 Britain of the loth of June, ISIG, it was stipnhited that the line of 
 boundary between the territ<nies of the parties on the forty-ninth i)ar- 
 allel .should t<top in the nu<hlle of the channel which separates the con- 
 tinent from Vancouver'.s Island, and should proceed thence southerly 
 throujjfh the middle of that channel and of Fuca's Straits, to the Pacitic 
 Ocean. 
 
 The point in dispute between the two governments is, as to which 
 channel was meant by the words referred to. On the part of the 
 United States it is contended that no other than the Ilaro, and on the 
 l)art of Great Britain that no other than the Itosario Channel could 
 liave been in contemplation. 
 
 The'Uuited States also contend that the history of the negotiation 
 .shows tiiat, in abandoning a claim to have the boundary of the forty-ninth 
 ])arallel extended to the Pacific, and thereby relinquishing the whole of 
 Vancouver's Island to Great Britain, they were actuated by an expecta- 
 tion that all other islands soxith of that parallel and east of the Ilaro 
 Channel would fall to them. The United States also contend that the 
 parties could not have supposed that any other channel was meant than 
 the wid(?st, the deepest, and the shortest between the Straits of Fuca 
 and the mouth of Fraser River, which conditions are only fultilleu by 
 the Ilaro Channel ; that the luivigation to and from Fuca's Straits by 
 the liosario Channel is comparatively circuitous, and that if that chan- 
 nel were to be the line, it wouhl throw into the po.S8ession of Great 
 Britain all the islands below the forty-ninth i)arallel and east of Van- 
 couver. 
 
 The objects and intentions of the parties in agreeing to the first arti- 
 cle of the treaty of the 15th June, 181G, seem to be well illustrated by 
 the following antecedents to that instrument: 
 
 By the third article of the treaty between the United States and 
 Great Britain of the 20tli October, 1818, the parties agreed to a joint 
 occupation of the territory which they might respectively claim on the 
 northwest coast of America west of the Itocky Mountains. 
 
 By their treaty with Spain of the 22d of February, 1819, the United 
 States acquired any title which the latter may have had in the same 
 territory north of the forty-second parallel of latitude. 
 
 By their treaty with Great Britain of the 0th of August, 1827, the 
 joint occupation of the territory referred to was indefinitely extended, 
 upon the condition that if, after the 20th of October, 1828, either party 
 ^should give twelve month.s' notice to the other, the convention would be 
 abrogated at the expiration of the said term of notice. 
 
 The forty-second parallel of latitude was also made the southern 
 boundary of the United States west of the Rocky Mountains, by their 
 treaty with Mexico of April, 1831. 
 
 In a letter to JMr. Upshur, Secretary of State, of the 14th of November, 
 
*^ 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 30V 
 
 .AND OF 
 
 and Groat 
 he line of 
 ninth i)ai- 
 ^s the con- 
 s stmtherly 
 the Pacitic 
 
 ,s to which 
 art of the 
 nd on the 
 unel conhl 
 
 legotiation 
 forty-ninth 
 le whole of 
 m expecta- 
 ■ the JJaro 
 d that the 
 iieant than 
 
 s of Fuca 
 fultilleu by 
 
 Straits by 
 
 that chau- 
 n of Great 
 
 t of Van- 
 
 e first arti- 
 istrated by 
 
 states and 
 to a joint 
 aim ou the 
 
 he United 
 the same 
 
 t, 1827, the 
 
 extended, 
 
 ither party 
 
 u wouhl be 
 
 B southern 
 IS, by their 
 
 November, 
 
 1813, iMr. Everett, United States minister to London, gives an account ot 
 an interview whicli he had had witl> Ijord Aherdecn on the (Uii of tliat 
 month. His lordship considered that the question sis to tlie northwestern 
 boundary stood as it had been left by ^h: Gallatin in his negotiation 
 with Messrs. lluskisson and Addington, in ISL'7. Lord Aberdeen 
 assented to areuunk of i\Ir. Eveiett, that the numerous stations wliicli 
 the Hudson's Bay Comi)any had established south of the 49th degree, 
 since 1818, though they would embarrass the Uritish government in 
 reference to that company, and, through them, in reference to itubli, 
 o[»inion, ought not to prejudice the claims of tlie United States. Mr 
 Everett also remarked that, in ottering the line of 4!>°, we acted faiily 
 and liberally ; that tlie otter was based on the natural principles of dis- 
 tribution, while they, in refusing that otter and insisting on tln^ Colum- 
 bia lliver, disregarded such principles, ami simply insisted u|)()n a 
 boundary very favorable to themselves. The United States otter was 
 in accordance with the rules of the English charters, of running north- 
 ern and southern boundaries from sea to se.a. To an objecition of Lord 
 Aberdeen, that lines of latitude were arbitrary, Mr. Everett answered, 
 that they were as likely to be in favor of Great Britain as of tiu^ United 
 States, and, besides, could readily be ascertained by men of science; 
 that the part of the boundary on the 49th i)arallel was tlu^ oidy one 
 respecting which no controversy had arisen or was '^ be feared. Fi- 
 nally, Mr. Everett said, that an equal partition of t o territory was an 
 obvious and natural [)rinciple of division, and that the forty-ninth piu- 
 allel was nearly an equal division of the region between 42° and 54^. K>. 
 Mr. Everett said to Lord Aberdeen, that when the United States pre 
 sented themselves before the tribunal of the public opinion of the world, 
 with a statement of the nature and foundation of their claim to the 
 whole territory, as the successors of Spain, and that they had ottered to 
 England a partition as nearly equal as could be made, reserving to 
 themselves only the half to what they had a better inde|iendent claim 
 than England, founded on prior discovery, occupation, and exploration, 
 and to wliich they had the fair claim of contiguity ami natural exten- 
 sion, there could not be a doubt but that the decision of that tribunal 
 would be in their favor. 
 
 Mr. Everett went on to remark that the main difticnlty in the adop- 
 tion of the forty-ninth degree to the ocean was, that it had already be« n 
 thrice ottered to Great Britain and always rejected. To meet this dith- 
 culty, suggested Mr. Everett, it might deserve the President's consi<ler- 
 atiou whether he would not agree to give up the southern extremity of 
 Quadra and Vancouver's Island, (whicli the forty-ninth degree would 
 leave within the United States,) ou condition that the eutram;e of the 
 Straits of Juan de Fuca should at all times be left open and ^'ree to the 
 United States, with a free navigation between that island and the main- 
 land, and a free outlet to the north. 
 
 In a dispatch of the 2d of December, Mr. Everett gives an account of 
 another interview with Lord Aberdeen on the 29th of November, 1843, 
 in the course of which his lordship stated that it would be impossible 
 for the ministry, for the time being, to accept what had been rejecte<l 
 i:' 1824 and 182G ; that they did not suppose that we, any more than 
 ttieroselves, could now agree to terms which we had then declined ; and 
 that, consequently, there must be concession on both sides ; that they 
 were willing to act on this principle, and that we must do the same. 
 
 Mr. Everett says that he regarded that observation, now made to him 
 for the first time, as very important. He told Lord Aberdeen that he 
 thought it. would be very ditticult for the United States to make any 
 
 M 
 
' in 
 
 308 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 tj 
 
 hi' 
 
 mil'- 
 
 'I ' 
 
 ma(li(ication of thoir former proposal, except in one pf)infc, which lie re- 
 jXiinled as very important to Eu;>iaM(l. fie ti.oiijjfht tlie PresiHent nii<jht 
 be iii(hu;e«l so far to depart from the forty-ninth paraUel as to leave the 
 wiiole of Qnadra and Vancouver's Island to England, whereas that lino 
 of latitude would trive the United States the southern extremity of that 
 island, and consequently tlie command of the straits of Fuca. Mr. Ev- 
 erett said that he was not authorized to say whether that would be 
 afjreed to, but that he thought and wished it might be. lie then pointed 
 out on a nujp the extent of the concession, which Lord Aberdeen said 
 he would take into consideration. 
 
 In a dispatch of the 1st of April, 1S^44, Mr. Everett gives an account 
 of another interview which he had witli Lord Aberdeen on the Kith of 
 IMarch, in the course of which he remarked that, in proportion as his 
 lordship should be inclined to think that the offer formerly nuule by the 
 United States to continue the forty-nLuth to the sea was an equitable 
 offer, he ought to be satisfied with but a moderate departure from that 
 I)roposal, y)articularly if such modification, without involving a great 
 sacrifice to the United States, were eminently advantageous to Great 
 Britain. In fact, such a modification was the only one which the United 
 States, in Mr. Everett's opinion, could be brought to agree to. A waiver 
 by the United States of their claim to the southern extremity of Quadra 
 and Vancouver's Island, which «ould bo cut off by the forty-ninth de 
 gree of latitude, was precisely of that kind. Lord Aberdeen did not 
 commit himself as to whether such a proposition would be accei)Led. 
 
 In a dispatch to Mr. Calhoun, of the 28th of February, 1845, Mr. Ev- 
 erett, referring to the proceedings in Congress in regard to the estab- 
 lishment of a territorial government in Oregon, stated that he hud had 
 several conversations with Lord Aberdeen. Mr. Everett expressed an 
 oi)inion founded on them, that England would never .'iccept the naked 
 l)roposition of the forty-ninth degree; but that she would accept that 
 line with the modification to which he had referred in previous dis- 
 ])atches, namely : the southern extremity of Quadra and Vancouver's 
 Island, though Lord Aberdeen bad never told him that they would do 
 this, and he was confident that this was the best boundary which the 
 United States could get by negotiation. 
 
 In a dispatch to Mr. Buchanan, of the 3d of March, 1846, Mr. McLane 
 referred to interviews which he had had with Lord Aberdeen, and 
 stated that he had little or no expectation that the British government 
 would offer or assent to a better partition than the extension of a line 
 on the 49th parallel to the Straits of Fuca, and thence through the 
 middle of those straits to the Pacific. 
 
 In a dispatch to Mr. Buchanan, of the 18th of May, 1846, Mr. McLane 
 remarked : "I have now to acquaint j'ou that, after the receipt of your 
 dispatches o.i the loth instant, by the Caledonia, I had a lengthened 
 conference with Lord Aberdeen, on which occasion the resumption of 
 the negotiation for an amicable settlement of the Oregon question, and 
 the nature of the proposition he contemplated submitting for that pur- 
 pose, formed the subject of a full and free conversation. I have now 
 to state that instructions will be transmitted to Mr. Pakenham by the 
 steamer of tomorrow, to submit a new and further proposition on the 
 part of this government for a partitic of the territory in dispute." 
 
 The proposition, most probably, will offer substantially: "First. To 
 divide the territory by the extension of the line on the parallel of forty- 
 nine to the sea ; that is to say, to the arm of the sea called Birch's 
 Bay ; thence bj^ the Canal de Arro and Straits of Fuca to the ocean, 
 and confirming to the United States what, indeed, they would possess 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 ;J0!) 
 
 icli he TO- 
 out mij^ht 
 leiive the 
 i that lino 
 ty of that 
 JMr. Ev- 
 woiiUl be 
 ill pointed 
 (lee II said 
 
 n aeeouiit 
 he Kith of 
 ion as his 
 iide by the 
 
 equitable 
 from that 
 g a great 
 ■4 to Great 
 ;he United 
 
 A waiver 
 of Quadra 
 
 • ninth de 
 n did not 
 jepied. 
 
 5, Mr. Bv- 
 the estab- 
 e had had 
 )ressed an 
 the naked 
 jcept that 
 vious dis- 
 lucouver's 
 would do 
 which the 
 
 r. McLane 
 deen, and 
 )vernuient 
 a of a line 
 rough the 
 
 r. McLane 
 pt of your 
 3Dgtheiied 
 mption of 
 stion, and 
 
 • that pur- 
 have now 
 
 am by the 
 ion on the 
 pute." 
 First. To 
 1 of forty- 
 id Birch's 
 the ocean, 
 d possess 
 
 without any special confirmation, the right freely to use and navigate 
 the straits throughout its extent." 
 
 June li!), l.S4(!, in the House of Coinn)ons, Sir llobert I'eel, in teu(U'r- 
 ing the resignation of the ministry, said, in reference to the termination 
 of the existing convention for tlie Joint occupation of Oregon by (ireat 
 Hritain and the United States: "It appeared to us that the a<ldilion of 
 that conciliatory declaration — the expression of a hope that the termina- 
 tion of the convention might th< more strongly imi>ress upon the two 
 countries the necessity of amicable a«ljustment — removed any bariit'r 
 which diplomatic jiunctilios might have raised to a renewal by this 
 country of the attempt to settle our differences with the United States. 
 We did not liesitate, therefore, within two days after the receipt ot 
 that intelligence — we did not hesitate, although the oiler of arbitrati(»n 
 made by us had been rejected — to do that which, in the presj'iit state 
 of the protracted dispute, it became essential to do, namely, not to 
 j)ropose renewed and lengthened negotiations, but to specily frankly 
 and without reserve what were the terms on which we could consent to 
 a partition of the country of the Oregon. Sir, the President of the 
 United States met us in corresponding spirit. Whatever might have 
 been the expressions heretofore used by him, however strongly he 
 might have been personally committed to the adoption of a different 
 course, he most wisely and ]>atriotically determined at once to refer our 
 proposals to the Senate, that authority of the United States whose 
 consent is requisite for the conclusion of any negotiation of this kind, 
 and the Senate, acting also in the same pacific s[)irit, has, I have 
 the heartfelt satisfaction to state, at once advised acquiescence in the 
 terms we oflered. From the importance of the subject, and con- 
 sidering that this is the last day 1 shall have to address the house as 
 a minister of the Crown, I may, perhaps, be allowed to state what are 
 the proposals we made to the United States for the final settleireut "f 
 the Oregon question. In order to prevent the necessity for rene.ved 
 diplomatic negotiations, we prei)ared and sent out the form of a cob 
 vention, which we trusted the United States would accept.*' 
 
 Here Sir Robert Peel quoted the language of the first article of the 
 treaty, and, in explanation thereof, continued : " Those who remember 
 the local conformation of that country will understand that that which 
 we proposed is the continuation of the forty-ninth parallel of latitude 
 till it strikes the Straits of Fuca; that that parallel should not be con- 
 tinued as a boundary across Vancouver's Island, thus depriving us of a 
 pnrt of Vancouver's Island ; but that the middle of the channel shall 
 be the future boundary, thus leaving us in possessnin of the whole of 
 Vancouver's Island, with equal right to navigation of the straits. Sir, 
 the second article of the convention we sent for the accei)tauee of the 
 United States was to this effect." 
 
 Here Sir liobert Peel quoted the second article of thr treaty, relating 
 to the navigation of the Columbia Kiver. 
 
 Continuing, he said: "Sir, I will not occupy the attention of the 
 House with mere details. I have read the in)portant ju tides." 
 
 Sir Robert further quoted an official letter from Mr. Pakenham, inti- 
 mating the acceptance of the British proposals, and giving assurance 
 of the immediate termination of differences with the United States. 
 
 Mr. Pakenham wrote, under date of June 13, that " the President 
 sent a message on Wednesday last to the Senate, submitting for the 
 opinion of that body the draught of a convention for the settlement of 
 the Oregon question ;" that after a few hours' deliberation on each of 
 the three days — Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday — the Senate, by a 
 
 ■'fi^ll 
 
 :rfla 
 
:no 
 
 GENKRAL APPENDIX 
 
 n ' ( 
 
 uiiijovit-.v of tliirtyei^iit v<)t«'s to twelve, Julo|)t<'<l ye.stcrd.iy oviMiiiif; .» 
 irs(»liiti()ii iidvisiii};' tlit^ Picsidcnt to ;i«'ct'|>t the terms juoposed by Her 
 ]\liijesty's «;(>venimeiit. l*resideiit I»ucliaiiaii iUH'oi'«linj;ly sent lor iiwi 
 this inorniii}'", and iiii'oniied me that the conditions ottered by ller 
 .Majesty's {•overnnicnt were aeitepted by tiie (rovjnninent of the United 
 Slates, witliont the a(hlition or alteration of a sinj;le word. Thus, sir, 
 ■ ne {i'overninents of two ;L;reat initious, ini[)elled, I believe, by the public; 
 (•pinion of eatih country in favor of i)ea('e, have by moderation, by mu- 
 tual compromise, averted the dreadfid calamity of u war between two 
 nations of kindred orij4in and common lan^iiiaj-c." {Ilnnsanrs Dehafcs, 
 tul. ST, p. 10."){> et >ii'(i.) 
 
 Viscount J'almeiston in reply said: " I should bo sorry to leave one 
 topic of the riyht honorable }«entkMnan's speecdi alter the deej» pleasure 
 which it 1ms affoi'ded; I mean the (!ommunicati(Ui which he made, and 
 wlii(;h will be received with entire satisfaction, not oidy within the 
 walls of Parliament but throu}>;hout the country, that the unfortnmiti! 
 dilferences which have arisen between this (!(uintry and the United 
 States iiave been broiiyht to a termination, whi(!h, as far as we <'an at 
 l>resent Judye, seems (uiuulln fai^'i 'tble to both ixtrtitH.'''' {IlansanVs JJo- 
 h<(l(N, '.Ul ISeries, rot. 87, j). lO")? «-i «tv/.) 
 
 Tluipapem n/ichich the J'oUoivUuj k a si/nojisis hear date suhncqucntly to 
 that of the treaty : 
 
 Mr. J. ^Nhdlenry Boyd, char^;e d'affaires of the United States at Lon- 
 «lon, in a dis))atclj to Mr. IJnchanan, Secretary of State, of the lt>th of 
 October, l.S-K>, rei)resents that Jiritish subjects contemplated settlinjion 
 Whitby's Island, one of those within the Straits of Fuca, south of the 
 forty-ninth parallel ; that the liritish j>overninent had consequently 
 been thrown into som^ doubt whether, accordinjif to the boundary in the 
 Oregon treaty, that island wouhl fall within AnuMican or Jiritish Juris 
 diction. IMr. lioyd accordingly suj>gested that if the Department was 
 not already in possession of evidence clearly defining the line, measures 
 shonld be taken toward obtaining it, for the purpose of meeting the 
 (juestiou when it should arise. 
 
 In a dispatch to Mr. Buchanan of the 3d of November, 1840, Mr. Ban- 
 croft, then Uiuted States minister at London, requested a copy of 
 Wilkes's chart of the Straits of Ilaro, it having been intimated to him 
 that (piestions might arise with regard to the islands east of that strait. 
 Mr. Ban(!roft requested authority to meet any such claim at the thresh- 
 old, by the assertion of the central channel of Straits of Haro as the 
 main channel intended by the recent treaty of Washington. 
 
 Mr. Buchanan complied with Mr. Bancroft's request l)yau instruction 
 of the 28th of December, 184(}. The instruction remarks that it wasuot 
 probable that the British government would seriously claim any island 
 east of the Canal of Uaro. That no doubt that was the channel which 
 Lord Aberdeen had in view when, in conversation with Mr. McLane, about 
 the nuildle of May, 1840, he explained the character of the proi)osition 
 he intended to submit through Mr. Pakenhiim, the British nunister at 
 Washington. This was, first, to divide the territory by the extension of 
 the line on the parallel of 49° to the sea ; that is to say, to the arm of 
 the sea called Birch's Bay, thence by the Caual de Haro and Straits of 
 Fuca to the ocean. 
 
 In a dispatch to Mr. Buchanan of the 29th of March, 1847, Mr. Ban- 
 croft adverts to supposed wishes of the Hudson's Bay Company to get 
 some of the islands on our side of the line in the Straits of Fuca, and 
 says that he would not be surprised if a formal proposition should soon 
 be made by the British government to run the line. The proposition 
 
GENERAL ArPENDIX. 
 
 311 
 
 !('(! by Her 
 Mit for mo 
 (I by Her 
 Jul Uniti'd 
 Thus, sir, 
 tlu' public; 
 on, by 111 II- 
 t\V('<Mi two 
 Ps Jkhaicx, 
 
 > k'jivo ono 
 'p pk'iisiire 
 ]na<l(', itiul 
 witliiii tlu! 
 iiit'ortuiiiiti; 
 :lie Uniti'd 
 ; wo <'im at 
 )iNar(Vs J)c- 
 
 scquentUj to 
 
 tos at Lou- 
 tlie lJ)tli of 
 sottliiijioii 
 »uth of tlie 
 iiseqnently 
 laiy ill the 
 itish Juris- 
 •tineiit was 
 1, ineas'ires 
 loetiny the 
 
 0,Mr. Baii- 
 a copy ot 
 ited to hi 1 11 
 that strait, 
 the thresh- 
 laro as the 
 
 instruction 
 ; it was not 
 any ishiiid 
 nnel whicli 
 jane, about 
 proposition 
 iiinister at 
 xtension of 
 the arm of 
 I Straits of 
 
 I, Mr. Ban- 
 ian y to get 
 Fuca, and 
 hould soon 
 )ropositiou 
 
 wonld in itself bo ])ropor if thoro should bo no ulterior motive to raise 
 unnecossiiry <loubcs and to rhiiin islands that are ptoporiy ours. He 
 expH'ssed his belief that the ministry had no such design. Some of its 
 members would be the first to frown on it. • 
 
 In a dispatch to Mr. nnchanan, of the 4tli of Aufjust, ISIS, :Mr. lian- 
 croft says that ho had been told by Tiord I'almorstoii th:it ho had made 
 a jiroposition at Washington for marUiiif; the boundary and tor ascer- 
 taining^ the division lino in tli(^ (ihaiinel bynotiiifjthe bearinjjs of certain 
 objects. "I observed that the water in the channel of Haro did not 
 retpiiro to bo divided, though, of course, the islands oast of thi; center 
 channel of Haro were ours. He spoke of the projiriety of settling doli- 
 nitively the ownorshij) of the several islands, in order that settlements 
 might not be begun by one party on what properly belonged to the 
 other." 
 
 In a note to Mr. Buchanan, of the l.'^tli of January, l.StS, ^\r. Crain])- 
 ton stated that he had been instructed to propose that the two govern- 
 ments should proceed to mark the boundary deiined in the tr«'aty. 
 After remarking upon other parts of the line, he gcos on to say: "But 
 between tiie Gulf of Georgia and the Straits of Fuca the line is loss dis- 
 tinctly and a(!curatoly detined by the verbal description of the treaty by 
 which it is established, and local circumstances render it jirobable that 
 if this part of the line were not to be precisely determined, tln^ uiumm-- 
 tainty as to its course might give rise to disputes between Ihitish sub- 
 .je(!ts and citizens of the United States." Mv. Crampton also said, in 
 substance, that as the point in tho center of the channel between Van- 
 couvers Island and the continent could not, probablj', be marked out by 
 any object to be permanently lixed on the spot, it should bo ascertained 
 by the intersection of cross-bearings of natural and artificial landmarks. 
 
 He goes on in the following words: "But in regard to this portion of 
 the boundary line, a preliminary question arises, which turns ujion the 
 interpretation of the treaty rather than upon the result of local observa- 
 tion and survey. The convention of the loth of June, 184G, declares 
 that the line shall be drawn through the middle of the channel which 
 separates the continent from Vancouver's Island. And upon this it may 
 be asked what the word 'channel' intended to mean. Generally speak- 
 ing, the word 'channel,' when emploj-ed in treaties, means a deep and 
 navigable channel. In the present case it is believed that only one 
 channel, that, namely, which was laid down by Vancouver in his chart, 
 has, in this part of the Gulf, been hitherto surveyed and used, and it 
 seems natural to suppose that the negotiators of the Oregon convention, 
 in employing the word 'channel,' had that particular channel in view." 
 
 Mr. Crampton's note was accompanied by a draught of instroctionsj to 
 the commissioners for marking the boundary. 
 
 The receipt of the communication, however, does not appear to have 
 been acknowledged. 
 
 With a note to Lord Palmerston of the 31st of July, 1848, Mr. Bancroft 
 sent a copy of Wilkes's chart of the Straits of Juan do Fuca ; but re- 
 marked that, though it did not extend to the i)arallel of 49°, it «;outainod 
 the wide entrance into the Straits of Haro, the channel through the 
 middle of which the boundary was to be continued. 
 
 With a dispatch to Mr. Buchanan of the 19th of October, 1848, Mr. 
 Bancroft sent a copy of the map of Vancouver's Island, by Wyld, geog- 
 rapher to the Queen. It purports to mark, by a dotted line, the bound- 
 ary between the United States and Great Britain. " You will see that 
 this map suggests an encroachment on our rights by adopting a line far 
 to the east of the Straits of Haro." 
 
 ■■■*-: 
 
312 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 M:i 
 
 i 
 1 
 
 :Hi 
 
 ¥ 
 
 i'l I,! 
 Til ' 
 
 i" 
 
 Ml 
 
 fiJt! 
 
 Mi 
 
 II H 
 i' 
 
 |!< 
 
 ! 1. 
 
 Mil 
 
 4 
 
 N '< 
 
 
 i^ * 
 
 t'A<^ 
 
 With a note to Lord Pulmerston of the .'3<1 of NovciiiImm', 1848, I\rr. 
 IJiiiKMoft sent him a copy of thu United States HiirveyH of the waters of 
 I'liffet SouihI and tliose dividin)^ Vancouver's Ishind from our territcny. 
 Mr. Bancroft remarket!, " Your lordship will readily trace the whole 
 course of the Channel of Ilaro, through the nuddlo of which our bound* 
 ary-line passes." 
 
 In a note to Mr. Bancroft of the 7th of November Lord Palmerstoii 
 thanked him for the surveys. 
 
 Au act of the Congress of the United States was passed on the 11th 
 of August, 1850, providing for the demarkatiou of the boundary on our 
 ])art. Mr. Archibald Campbell was appointed commissioner. The in- 
 structions of Mr. Marcy, Secretnry of State, addressed to him in that 
 (character, be.nr date the 2oth of February, 1857. They do not advert to 
 any particulars in regard to the water-boundary. The following is a 
 paragraph of the instructions : 
 
 Havin}? completotl tlio orgiiiiization and ontfit, and made the otlior preparations in- 
 dicated, yon will repair to Fiica StruitH, via Han Francisco, to meet the conuuis- 
 Hioner on the part of the BritiHh government, and proceed with him to determine hucIi 
 Itortion of the line descrihed in the lirst article of the treaty ua is provided for by the 
 act above cited. 
 
 Captain James C. Prevost, of Iler Britannic Majesty's ship Satellite? 
 Mas the commissioner on the part of Great Britain. After divers con- 
 ferences with ]\[r. Campbell on the subject of the water-boundary, he 
 addressed a letter to him under date the 28th of October, 1857, setting 
 forth his objections to the adoption of the line of the Ilaro Channel. 
 These are, in substance, that when the line from the initial point in the 
 Gulf of Georgia proceeds in a southerly direction as far as 48^ 45' of 
 north latitude, it meets a group of islands through which there are two 
 passages. One of these, called liosario Strait, is near the continent, 
 and the other, called Ilaro Channel, is nearer Vancouver's Island. lie 
 asserts that the only navigable channel separating the continent from 
 Vancouver's Island is liosario Strait. 
 
 He cLiims that the channel contemydated by the treaty should possess 
 three characteristics : 1st. It should separate the continent from Van- 
 couver's Island ; lid. It should admit of the boundary-lino being carried 
 through the middle of it in a southerly direction ; 3d. It should be a 
 navigable channel. To these conditions the Kosario Strait most entirely 
 answers. He goes on to admit that che Ilaro Channel is also navigable, 
 but on account of the currents and the want of anchorage-grounds, not 
 so easily so. He asserts that that channel does not separate the con- 
 tiiient froui Vancouver's Island, and that the line to reach that channel 
 must proceed for some distance in a westerly direction. 
 
 Mr. Campbell replied on the 2d oi November, 1857, that as the Haro 
 Channel was pre-eminent in widm. depth, and volume of water, this 
 must have been the one contempuited by the treaty. It was known 
 under its name since the lirst discovery, and was the only one usually 
 designated by name on the maps in use at the time the treaty was under 
 consideration, while the other channels only separate the islands in the 
 group from each other ; the Haro Channel for a considerable distance 
 north of the Straits of Fuca, and where their waters unite, washes 
 the shore of Vancouver's Island, and is therefore the only one which, 
 according to the language of the treaty, separates the continent from 
 Vancouver's Island. 
 
 The term southerly used in the treaty would not admit of the de- 
 markatiou of the line in a due south direction through any channel. It 
 
GENERAL APPENUIX. 
 
 313 
 
 , 1848, ^[r. 
 > waters of 
 • territory, 
 the whole 
 )ur bound- 
 
 'ulmerston 
 
 I the nth 
 ar.v on our 
 The in- 
 tn in that 
 t advert to 
 wing is a 
 
 arations in- 
 tbe cuiuiuis- 
 eriuine hucIi 
 il for by the 
 
 » Satellite J 
 ivers con- 
 mdary, he 
 57, setting 
 Channel. 
 )int in the 
 48^ 45' of 
 re are two 
 continent, 
 land. He 
 neut from 
 
 Id possess 
 roui Van- 
 jg carried 
 3uld be a 
 st entirely 
 lavigable, 
 junds, not 
 the con- 
 it channel 
 
 the Haro 
 ater, this 
 as known 
 o usually 
 was under 
 ads in the 
 i distance 
 e, washes 
 ue which, 
 Qeut from 
 
 of the de- 
 mnel. It 
 
 was consequently to be presumed that the genera direction only was to 
 be toward the south. 
 
 Kosaria Straits do not separate the continent from Vancouver's 
 Island, but some islands from others; although the relative merits of 
 the mivigability for sailing-vessels of the Haro Channel and llosario 
 Straits was not to be regarded as having any bearing on the determina- 
 tion of the question. Captain Aldeii, however, of the United Stales 
 Navy, who, in the years 185;J and IS.")."), had made surveys of those wa- 
 ters, had otlicially reported the Haro Channel as the widest, deepest, 
 and best. Keference is then made to the dispatch of INIr. Me Lane to 
 Mr. liuchanauof the 18th of May, 184(5, in which he reported that the 
 line of the Haro Channel was to be proposed by the British govern- 
 ment. Mr. Campbell thence infers that the object of the framers of 
 the treaty was to run the line so as to avoid cutting off the southern 
 Cfipe of Vancouver's Island by adopting the line through the Haro 
 Channel. The speech of Mr. Benton in the Senate relative to the treaty 
 shows the same understanding in regard to it. 
 
 Captain Prevost replied, under date of the 9th of November, that in 
 his opinion the Kosario Channel was the only one that conformed to the 
 language of the treaty, bj separating the continent from Vancouver's 
 Island. The Haro Chainiel separates Vancouver's Ishuul from the con- 
 tineut. The usual terms of exi)ression appear to be designedly re- 
 versed in the treaty, for the lesser is not separated from the greater, 
 but the greater from the lesser. There is no navigable channel between 
 the continent ar.'l the islands on the east of Itosario Straits, and, there- 
 fore, no such channel as the treaty calls for. From the Culf of Georgia 
 to the Straits of Fuca the line can be carried through Kosario Straits 
 in a southerly, whereas through the Haro Channel it must take a wes- 
 terly direction. 
 
 The information given by Mr. McLane was as to a probable proposi- 
 tion. The one adopted in the treaty was difierent. 
 
 He then refers to Preuss's map of Oregon, printed by order of the 
 Senate, in which the line is carried through Ilosario Channel. 
 
 Mr. Campbell rejoined, under date of the 18th November, 1857, that 
 in his judgment no change in the position of the words used in the 
 treaty could nuike any ditterence in their meaning. Captain Provost's 
 admission that the Haro Channel is undoubtedly the navigable channel 
 which, at its position, separates Vancouver's Island from the continent, 
 might be regarded as tantamount to a settlement of the question. Al- 
 though Mr. Mcl^ne and Mr. Benton were not the signers of the treaty, 
 they had such an oflicial connection with the negotiations that their 
 evidence should have equal weight with that of the signers themselves. 
 Immediately upon the receipt of Mr. M( Lane's dispatch of the 18th of 
 May,Mr.Pakenham submitted to Mr. Buchanan the draught of a conven- 
 tion. This draught was laid before the Senate, with all the correspon- 
 dence upon the subject, and was approved by that body. The draught 
 referred to is the same, word for word, with the treaty as signed. Mr. 
 Campbell shows that Captain Prevost's comment upon Mr. McLane's 
 dispatch, to the effect that supposing the original ])roposition to have 
 been as reported by that gentleman it was designedly altered after dis- 
 cussion, to be without foundation. No such discussion could have taken 
 place between Mr. McLane and Lord Aberdeen without being reported 
 by the former ; and none could have taken place between Mr. Pakea- 
 ham and Mr. Buchanan, as the former was not authorized to enter into 
 any. Preuss's map had no otticial authority. 
 
 Captain Prevost replied, under date of the 24th of November, 1858, that 
 
314 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 t ■ 
 
 ■ 4( 
 
 
 the coiitiiuMit as well as the island must he reffiirdod according to its nat- 
 ural sigiiitication and according to its natural position; and tiiat when 
 two channels exist hetween a continent and a particular island, the argu- 
 ment apjx'ared irresistible that the channel contigu(m .^ to the continent 
 was the channel separating the continent from the island, while the chan- 
 nel contiguous to the island is the channel separating the island from tiio 
 continent. The inference that the Haro Channel was i)roposed by the 
 ]iritish government because that happened to be mentioned in Mr. j\Ic- 
 Lane's dispatch, was unwarrantable. He would be surprised if Captain 
 Alden should not agree with him that Kosario Straits are preferable to 
 Haro Channel for sailing-vessels. Tiie treaty in the matter of the chan- 
 nel separating the continent from Vancouver's Island was dear, and he 
 could not admit any evidep.ce on this subject to weigh with hiui that 
 would lead to an interpretation that the precise terms of the treaty would 
 not admit. Although ho was firm in the conviction that Kosario Straits 
 and not Haro Channel was the one contemplated by the treaty, he was 
 willing to regard the Gulf of Georgia as one chanr<el, and agree to a line 
 passing through the middle of it, so far as the islands would permit. 
 
 Mv. Campbell rejoined, under date of the 2.Sth of November, 1858, 
 that the projjosed instructions to the coaimissioners which accompanied 
 Mr. Crampton's note to Mr. Uuchanan, of the 13th of January, 1848, 
 contained the following sentence: ''From that point you will carry on 
 the line of boundary along the forty-ninth parallel of latitude to the 
 middle of the channel between Vancouver's Island and the continent." 
 
 This, Mr. Cami)bell contends, shows the view of the British govern- 
 ment within two years after the conclusion of the treaty. He adds 
 that, in 1S18, Rosario Straits was not claimed on the ground that there 
 Wits anything peculiar in the wording of the treaty; nor was there any 
 claim founded upon the supi)osition of a "designed alteration" of the 
 originaldranghtof the treaty by omitting the Haro Channel and substitu- 
 ting its present language. In opposition to Captain Prevost's opinion 
 that the words of the treaty were so peculiarly ])reci8e and clear as to 
 point out unmistakably Kosario Straits as the channel, Mr. Crampton, 
 speaking on the part of his government, says: ''But between the Gulf of 
 Georgia and the Straits of Fuca the line is less distinctly and accurate- 
 ly defined by the verbal description of the treaty." In regard to this, 
 Mr. Campbell quotes the following passage from Vattel: "If he who 
 can and ought to have explained himself clearly and plainly has not 
 done it, it is the worse for him. He cannot be allowed to introduce 
 subseipient restrictions which he has not expressed." . 
 
 Mr. Campbell declined accepting Captain Provost'cj proposition, and 
 expressetl the opinion that there was not the slightest probability that 
 the British government, Captain Prevost, or any other person, would 
 ever be called upon for a renewal of it. 
 
 Captain Prevost replied, under date of the 1st of December, 1857, 
 that if the treaty was intended by the United States Government to ac- 
 cord with the correspondence of ]\Ir. McLane and the speech of Mr. 
 Benton, the general maxim which Mr. Campbell had qnoted from Vattel 
 Avould be more ap[)licable to the United States than to the British gov- 
 ernment; for, if the former intended that the line should run through 
 the Haro Channel, they should have taken care that it was so expressed 
 "clearly and plainly " in the treaty. Ii! conclusion, he proposed a con- 
 ference, in order that it might be formally recorded that the commis- 
 sioners were unable to agree ; that Mr. Campbell had declined to accede 
 to his proposition for a compromise, and, therefore, that the whole mat- 
 ter might be referred to their respecti>'e goverumeuts. 
 
GENKRAL APPENDIX. 
 
 315 
 
 to its nat- 
 liat wlum 
 the iwini- 
 contiiiLMit 
 tliO(5haii- 
 Ifroin tlio 
 ed by the 
 1 Mr. IMc- 
 f Captain 
 t'erable to 
 the chau- 
 ir, Hinl he 
 him that 
 ity wonhl 
 io Straits 
 V, he was 
 IS to a line 
 >erinit. 
 _)er, IS^S, 
 )m pan led 
 iry, 184S, 
 carry on 
 de to the 
 nitinent." 
 ii jjovern- 
 He adds 
 hat there 
 liere any 
 i" of the 
 snbstitu- 
 I opinion 
 ear as to 
 rainpton, 
 leGnlfof 
 accnriite- 
 d to this, 
 f he who 
 has not 
 ntroduce 
 
 tion, and 
 ility that 
 m, would 
 
 )er, 1857, 
 
 nt to ac- 
 
 h of "Sir. 
 
 m Vattel 
 
 tish gov- 
 
 th rough 
 
 X pressed 
 
 ed a con- 
 
 conunis- 
 
 :o accede 
 
 lole mat- 
 
 Mr. Campbell replied on the 2d of December, recapitulating his pre- 
 vious arguments, and concluding with tlie remark that he thouglit any 
 proposition, with a view to concession on the part of United states, was 
 hardly justilhible under the circumstancies. 
 
 In a report to General Cass, Secretary of State, of +he 25th of Sep- 
 tember, 1858, Mr. Campbell represents that the settlement of the (pies- 
 tion of the channel involves the sovereignty' of the group of islands 
 called the Ilaro Archipelago, between the Haro Channel and Ifosario 
 Straits, embraced in a space of about four huiulred S('uare niiles. lie 
 then pro(!eeils to show the importance of these islands, in a military and 
 naval point of view, quoting olhcial oj)inions of officers. 
 
 In a letter to Mr. Campbell of the 15th of June, 1858, Mr. Bancroft 
 states that he was in Mr. Polk's cabinet when the Oregon treaty was 
 concluded, and that the general understanding, both in England and in 
 the United States, was, tliat the British boundary was to extend to the 
 nii<ldle of the Ilaro (Channel. 
 
 In a full and elaborate report to General Cass of the2()th of Janmiry, 
 1859, j\lr. Caini»l)ell reviewed his proceedings as commissioiuM', and Ci»m- 
 mented on the respective claims of the i)arties to tiieclianiud mentioned 
 in the treaty. In the course of his letter Mr. Camjjbell expresses an 
 opinion that the com])r()mise line olfered by Captain Prevost would not 
 be a suitable channel for a boundary, with such channels as Ilaro and 
 Kosario in its vicinity. Iii su])port of this opinion, he states the maxi- 
 mum and minimum width of the several channels, and refers to other 
 im])ortant circumstances. 
 
 With a letter to the Department of the 21st of June, 1850, Mr. Camp- 
 bell transmitted a co|)y of the (Joast Survey chart of the space between 
 the continent and Vancouver's Island, corrected by the results of a 
 survey of the same space by Captain lli(;hards, of the British navy, 
 acting on behalf of his government. In the course of his h'tter, Mr. 
 Campbell reinesents that the mai) adverted to shows that there is still 
 anotiier channel nearer to Vancouver's Island than that of Ilaro, which 
 answers the description in the treaty as separating the contineiit from 
 that island. The lines on the mai) indicate, according to Mr. Cam[)- 
 bell's statement — 
 
 1st. The boundary-line contemplated by the treaty, as shown by con- 
 teniporaneous evidence, through the nuddle of the Ciulf of Georgia and 
 Ilaro Channel, the main channel between the continent and Vancouver's 
 Island. 
 
 2d. The bouinlary-line claimed by the British commissioner through 
 the Gulf of Georgia and llosario Straits, on the pretense that the chan- 
 nel which separates the contineut from Vancouver's Island means the 
 chaniH'l iKiarest to the cominent. 
 
 3d. Tlu^ bouiularysine i»roposed by the British commissioner as a 
 compromise througii the Gulf of Georgia, a part of the Haro Cliannel, 
 and the channel east of San Juan Island. 
 
 4:th. The boundary-line whicii might be claimed by the United States 
 in accordance with the letter of the treaty, or by adopting an interpre- 
 tation of it, so as to carry out the sole object of the deviation of the 
 boundary-line from the forty-ninth i)arallel to the ocean, through the 
 Straits of Fuca, viz, to give the whole of Vancouver's Island to Great 
 Britain. 
 
 5th. Track of steamers plying between Victoria and Fraser Itiver 
 since the discovery of gold. 
 
 A copy of instru(!tions of the British government to Captain Prevost 
 was obtained through Mr. Dallas, United States minister at London. 
 
 •- 
 
 r 
 
 
 I 
 
316 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 Hit' 
 
 til; 
 
 ■»■; II 
 
 1? 
 
 i 
 
 They bear date the 20th December, IsrJO, aad express the opinion that 
 the liosario Channel was the boundary contemphited by the treaty. 
 They use the following language: " If, however, tha commissioner of 
 the Utiited States will not adopt the line along Kusario Straits, and if, 
 on a detailed and aecu'-ate survey, and on weighing the evidence on 
 both sides of the question, you should be of opinion that the claims of 
 her Majesty's government to consider Eosario Straits as the channel 
 indicated by the words of the treaty cannot be substantiated, you would 
 be at liberty to adopt any otlier intermediate channel which you may 
 discover on which the United States commissioner and yourself may 
 agree, as substautially in accordance with the description of the treaty." 
 
 A copy of these instructions having beeu communicated to Mr. 
 Campbell, he remarks, in a letter to the Department of the 4th of 
 August, 1859, that they show tiuit Captain Prevost was by them vir- 
 tually, if not positively, prohibited from adopting the Haro Channel as 
 the boundary channel intended by the treaty. 
 
 With a letter to the Depaitment of the 18th of August, 1858, Mr. 
 Campbell communicated information of the landing of a company of 
 United States troops, under command of Captain Picliett, on the island 
 of San Juan, on the 26th of July. He also communicated a copy of the 
 ])rotest of Governor Douglas, of Vancouver's Island, against the mili- 
 tary occupation of that island by any other than a British force. 
 
 In a letter of Mr. Drinkard, Acting Secretary of War, to Gen.' ;0 
 Harney, of the 3d of Septejnber, 1859, the occupation of San J; a 
 lisiand by a military force is not approved. 
 
 In a letter of Mr. Drinkard to General Scott, of the 10th of Septem- 
 ber, 1859, the wish of the President was referred to tliat he sliould 
 take command of the military forces on the Pacific coast, and ho was 
 instructed that until the title to the island of San Juan could be 
 adjusted it would be desirable for him to arrange for a joint occupation 
 of that island. 
 
 This General Scott did,, in a letter of the 25th of October, 1859, to 
 Governor Douglas, of Vancouver's Island. The proposition was at tirst 
 declined, but was afterward practically acceded to by the landing of a 
 body of British marines r.t the north end of the island. The joint mili- 
 tary occupation has ever sinc<^ continued. 
 
 Under date the 12th of INIay, 1859, Lord Lyons addressed a note to 
 General Cass relative to attempts of citizens of the United States to 
 establish themselves on tiie island <»f San Juan, and stated that his 
 government trusted that the United States Government woidd, so far 
 as it could, restrain them from attem[»ting to settle, by unauthorized 
 acts of violence, a question which there v,ould probably be little ditti- 
 culty in arranging by amicable communication between the two gov- 
 ernments. 
 
 In an instruction to Lord Lyons of the 24th of August, 1859, Lord 
 Kussell referred to the disagreement between the American and British 
 commissioners in reganl to the dennirkation of the water boundary, 
 expressed regret that no u.ap was annexed to the treaty of 184(5, but 
 stated that his government fully concurred w'th their conmissioner 
 that the line should run through Kosario Straits. He then proceede^^' 
 to review the arguments on both sides, and concluded by proposing t' ' 
 same conipromise line as that ottered to Mr. Campbell by Captain Pre- 
 vost, and by declaring that his government must, under any circum- 
 stances, maintain its right to the island of San Juan. 
 
 This paper was fully reidied to by General Cass in au iirs. taction to 
 Mr. Dallas of the 20th of October, 1859. After ad a ting t" "ucum- 
 
 * 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX, 
 
 317 
 
 lion that 
 e treaty, 
 sioiier of 
 s, and if, 
 leiico on 
 jlainis of 
 channel 
 ou would 
 yon may 
 self may 
 ) treaty." 
 I to Mr. 
 le 4th of 
 :hem vlr- 
 lannel as 
 
 1858, Mr. 
 npany of 
 he island 
 •py of the 
 the mili- 
 ce. 
 
 GeiM- ■;»,> 
 iau J u 
 
 Septera- 
 e sliould 
 d he was 
 could be 
 cnpatiou 
 
 1859, to 
 IS at tirst 
 liufjf of a 
 oint mili- 
 
 i note to 
 States to 
 that his 
 d, so far 
 itiu)rized 
 ttle dim- 
 two gov- 
 
 559, Lord 
 d British 
 oundary, 
 184<), but 
 nissioner 
 roceede^' 
 osing t' ' 
 ;ain Pre- 
 circum- 
 
 iiction to 
 < 'Mrcum- 
 
 
 stances leading to the treaty of 1840, and stating that the object of the 
 United States in accei)ting tiwit instrument was to allow to Great Britain 
 the whole of Vancouver's Island, but to exclude her from any other 
 territory south of the parallel of 49^, the instruction goes on to remark 
 that the friendly sentiments expressed in Lord Itu-^sell's paper do not 
 harmonize with the declaration which it contained that the British gov- 
 ernment would, under any circumstances, maintain its right to the island 
 of iSan Juan. If this declaration should be insisted on, said (Jeneral 
 Cass, it must terminate the negotiation at its threshold. The i)roposi- 
 tiou for compromise assumes that the disagreement in respect to the 
 treaty is irreconcilable. The failure of the commissioners to agree was 
 in part, at least, imputable to the peculiar character of the instructions 
 to the British commissioner. At the time of the negotiation of the 
 treaty, all that the British government claimed was that the line should 
 deliect from the forty-ninth parallel so far as to assign to them the 
 whole of Vancouver's Island. This was all that the xYmerican Govern- 
 ment conceded. Mi*. Buchanan had instructed Mr. McLane that, except 
 for this purpose, the President would never consent to bring the British 
 boundary a single inch below the parallel of 49°, and no other juirpose 
 than this was anywhere avowed. Tiie Haro is the only channel wliich 
 Avould not leave something more to Great Britain south of the forty- 
 ninth parallel than the southern cape of Vancouver's Island. Whether 
 the Haro was or was not the true channel in the opinion of the British 
 uegotiators, it was quite certain, from current testimony of both the 
 American and British negotiators, tliat the Kosario Channel was not. 
 The Douglas CUannel, which was suggested by Lord Ilussel- is admitted 
 to be an inferior one, scarcely capable of navigation, except by steamers, 
 and was supiiosed to be recommended because it would leave the island 
 of San Juan to Great Britain. 
 
 In an instruction to Lord Lyons, of the KJth of Drcember, 1859, Lord 
 Russell replied tiiat his government could not concur in the conclusions 
 to which General Cass had arrived. What Lord Aberdeen meant by 
 King George's Sound, down which the line was to run, might be clearly 
 inferred from a letter addressed to him at the time of the conclusion of 
 the treaty, by Sir John Pelly, then the governor of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company, of which letter the following is an extract : " With respect to 
 the other islands, the water demarkation line should be from the cen- 
 ter of the water in the Gulf of Georgia, in the forty-ninth degree, along 
 ■^l;e line coloied red as navigable in the chart made by Vancouver until 
 reaches a line drawn through the center of the Straits of Juan de 
 The only objection to this is giving to the United States the val- 
 ' : ' e island of Whidbey." However the British government migiit be 
 M sposed to rely on the instructions of Lord Aberdeen and the letter 
 of Sir John Pelly, and the United States on the statements of Mr. 
 McLane and Mr, Benton, it must be coniessed on both sides that the 
 interpretation of one party, without the expressed assent of the other, 
 goes but very little way to remove the uiiliculty. Lord Bussel concludes 
 his paper with a dire<!tion to renew the otter of comi)romise. 
 
 General Cj'ss, in an instruction to Mr. Dallas, of tlie 4th of February, 
 186(», after adverting to other points in the instruction of Lord liussell 
 to Lonl Lyons of the iCth of December, 1859, states that, as Lord 
 I'lissell repeats his original declaration that no settlement of the ques- 
 tion would be accepted by the British government which did not jirovide 
 for the reservation of the island of San Juan to the British Crown, the 
 President had directed him to state that the United States would, under 
 all circumstances, maintain their right to the island in controversy until 
 
 
 M 
 
 ;l "i 
 
318 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 'm 
 
 the question of title to it should be (k'tennined by some amic.ible 
 anaiiyement between the parties. 
 
 In an instruetion to Lord Lyons of the 9th of Mareh, 18(50, Lord 
 liusscll refers to his declaration contained in his dis|)atch of tlie 2ith of 
 August, to wiiich exception was talien by General Cass, and was put 
 Jorwanl as a ground for declining to continue the discussion. Lord 
 Jiussell expresses disap]>ointnient that tlie explanation Avhich Lord 
 Lyons was authorized to olfer wt>s not accepted as satisfactory, " Her 
 [Majesty's government maintain that either the Canal de Kosario or the 
 Douglas Channel might be held to be the boundary contemplated by 
 the treaty ; but that the Canal de Haro neither fulfills the intention of 
 the British negotiators of the treaty, nor is consistent with the words 
 of the treaty itself." 
 
 In an instruction to Mr. Dallas of the 23d of April, ISGO, General 
 Cass remarked that, as Lord liussell had acknowledged that the 
 expression objected to in his dispatch of the 24th of August, 1859, 
 A\ as not intended to convey the meaning which this Government had 
 attached to it, the subject was now free from the embarrassment occa- 
 sioned thereby. General Cass also referred to the 8]>eech of 8ir Kobert 
 l*eel on the trea • n the House of Commons on the 29th c' June, 18-10, 
 as showing that ta ection in the line from the parallel of 49° had 
 
 not left Great Brit. n the possession of any other island than that 
 of Vancouver. " Whiie the President, therefore, feels himself obliged 
 to decline to adopt the Douglas Channel as the boundary of the two 
 countries between Vancouver's Island and the continent, aiul to nniin- 
 tain the Canal de IJaro as the true boundary in that (piarter, which was 
 intended by the treaty, he is glad to believe that no serious injury can 
 be intiicted on British interests by the adoption of the Anun-ican line." 
 
 In a note to General Ciss of the 10th of December, 1800, Lord Lyons 
 ])roposed that the question of the water bouiulary should be referred to 
 the arbitration of a reigning prince or sovereign state. 
 
 No reply appears to have been made to this note. 
 
 No diplomatic discussion of the question of boundary has since taken 
 place. 
 
.amicable 
 
 8(J0, Lord 
 lie litth of 
 was put 
 1)11. Lord 
 lich Lord 
 \V, " Her 
 irio or the 
 
 I plated by 
 iteiition of 
 the words 
 
 [), General 
 that the 
 list, 1859, 
 iiieiit had 
 iieut occa- 
 Sir llobert 
 line, 184G, 
 •f 49^ had 
 than that 
 If obliged 
 f the two 
 
 II to main- 
 vhich was 
 njury can 
 icaii line." 
 M\\ Lyons 
 .'ferred to 
 
 nee taken 
 
 VI.-THE CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES ACAIXST CHEAT 
 BRITAIN ON ACCOUiNT OF ACTS COMMITTED BV REBEL 
 CRUISERS. 
 
 1. CONCESSION OF BELLIGERENT RIGHTS. 
 
 The dates of the several acts v. liich inive been jited by either party 
 in the discussion of this (piestion are herewith given : 
 
 Fort iSamter surrendered. i-r.i, Apni u. 
 
 riesi<leiit Lincoln, by proclamation, called oat the militia inm. Apr.i i -. 
 and convened Congress. 
 
 Jelferson Davis, by proclamation, gives notice that he will i^i. Apni ir. 
 grant letters of marqne. {Received by Jirttisli (jovernment May 10.) 
 
 President Lincoln issues his lirst jn'oclaiiiation of blockade, i^ci. aimu w. 
 which was as follows : 
 
 By the I'residcnt o/thr United iitatis. 
 
 A PKOCLAM.V'IIOX. 
 
 Whereas an insurrection a;?ainst tlie Gi)vcr«nieut of the United States has hrokeu 
 ont in tilt? States ot Sontli Carolina, Geor{j;ia, Alabanni, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, 
 and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the eolleetion of the revenue cannot 
 be etfeetnally exeentetl tlierein conformably to that provision of tiie Constitution which 
 retinires duties to be uniform thronnhout the United States ; 
 
 Au<l whereas a conibiuatiou of persitns, eui;a;;ed in sueii insurrection, have threatein'<l 
 to grant pretended letters of mar»iue to authorize the bearers thereof to eoiniuit assaults 
 ou the lives, vessels, an;! property of j;ood citizens of tin; country lawfully eiij^ajfed in 
 commerce ou the hi<fh se.s, and in waters of the United States; 
 
 And whereas an (.'xecutu c i>roclamatiou has been already issued, retiuirinj; tlu! jter- 
 •sous enframed in these disorderly proceedinj^s to desist therefrom, eailin;;' out a militia 
 force for the purpose of rei»re,ssin<f the same, aiul convening Congress in cxtraordiiuiry 
 session to deliberare and <letermine thereon : 
 
 Now, therefore, I, Abraham Liueolu, Fresident of ihe UnitcMl States, with a A'iow to 
 the same purposes befoie mentioned, ami to the ]tiotection of the public peace, and the 
 Jives and property of tjuiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occui)atious, 
 until Congress shall have assembled and delil>eratetl on tlu' said uidawfnl proceedings, 
 or until th(^ same shall have cease«l, have further deemed it a<lvisable to set on foot a 
 blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursiuince of the laws of the United 
 States ami of the law of nations in such «ases provided. For this pnrjiose a competent 
 force will be posted so as to jirevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports afore- 
 said. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel sJniU approach, or 
 shall attempt to leave either of the said jiorts, she will be duly warned by the eom- 
 nuiuder «)f one of the blockading vessels, wlu) will indorse on her register the fact and 
 date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to <nter oi leave the 
 blockade*! |)ort, she will be captured ami sent to tin; nearest convenient jtort, for such 
 ]uoce»Hlings against her and her cargo as prizi- as nuiy lie deemed advisable. 
 
 Ami I hereby proclaim and declare ihat if any jierson, under the preteudctl authority 
 of the said States, or uiuler any other ])retense, shall UM)lest a vessel of the I'nited 
 States, or the persons or cargo on board of her, such persons will be held ameualde to 
 the laws of the Uiuted States for the prevention and punishment of piracy. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United 
 States to be afhxed. 
 
 Done at the city of Washington this nineteeutli day of April, in the year of our Lord 
 one thousantl eight hundred aiul sixty-one, and of the Independence of the I'nited 
 States the eighty-lifth. 
 
 [I.. 8.] ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 
 
 By the President : 
 
 Wll.UAM H. Skwaud, 
 
 Setrvtdry of Slatei 
 
 M 
 
320 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 
 k3 
 
 (^ 
 
 
 ! 
 
 1 . 
 
 'h 
 
 I t 
 
 ^^\\ 
 
 IHfil, April 22. 
 
 1B61, April 27. 
 
 Troops of the United iJtates on the way to Washington were attacked 
 1851 , iiu l\v a mob in Baltimore. Commnnication by railroad and tele- 
 ' ' '" ■ j>rapli between Washington and New York and north of that 
 point was interrupted by the rebels from the 21st to the 28th April in case 
 of telegraph, and from April 19 to May 3 and after, in case of railroad. 
 Passeiigers were two or three days in making difficult and expensive 
 transit in carriages on and after the 20th. {Yide Nevs Yorli Herald.) 
 
 The steamer Caiuidian sailed from Portland, taking the Boston papers 
 1861 2 ^* ^'^'^^ ^^'*^ ' ^^^^^' telegraphic accounts of the riots at Baltimore, 
 '*""""' and what purported to be a version of the President's procla- 
 mation, which version appeared in the London journals as hereafter 
 stated. 
 
 The Department of State issued a circular to its representatives 
 
 ia«i 20 ^'^^^'"''^^^ which purported to inclose a copy of the President's 
 
 first proclamation of blockade. ( Vol. /., p. 20.) 
 
 Lord Lyons incloses an unofficial copy of a proclamation of blockade 
 
 to his government, (supposed to be a newspaper version.) This 
 
 note, it is stated by the British government, was received on 
 
 May 10. ( Vol. /., p. 18.) 
 
 Steamer Perssia left New York for England with the New York 
 
 1861, April tb. i i.1 i 1 i 
 
 papers up to that date. 
 President Lincoln's second proclamation of blockade was issued ex- 
 tending the blockade to Virginia and North Carolina. (Stat. 
 
 1861, April 2?. , T '^ J lo -IO-n\ ^ 
 
 ot Large, vol. 12, p. 12o9.) 
 Lord Lyons communicates to his government a copy of Mr. Seward's 
 note of same date, covering a printed copy of the pro(!lamatiou 
 of the 19th of April. {Received at British Foreign Office May 
 14.) ( Vol. I., p. 23.) 
 
 18G1, MHy 1. Mr. Adams, United States minister, left Boston for his post. 
 Steamer Canadian arrived at Londonderry, and her news was tele- 
 graphed to London. The Daily News of May 2 contjiins the 
 1861, M.,y 1. f(^iiQ^i„g paragraphs : " President Lincoln has issued a procla- 
 mation declaring a blockade of all the ports in the seceded States. 
 
 ' ( )' The Federal Grovernment will condemn as pirates all privateer 
 
 vessels which may be seized by Federal ships." 
 
 The steamer Canadian arrived at Liverpool on the 2d of May. On 
 1881, M,.y 2. the 3d of May the Daily News published the news of the proc- 
 1881, M«y 3. lamation in the following language, which was repeated ver- 
 1801, Mny *. batlui lu the Times of the 4th of May, and, as far as known, no 
 other copy was ever printed in the English journals: 
 
 The following is the President's proclamation of the blockade of the 
 southern ports : 
 
 An in.sunection against the Government of the United States has broken out in ( :w 
 States of South Carolina, Georgia, Ahibama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, 
 and the law of the United States cannot be executed effectually therein conformably 
 to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout 
 the United States. And further, a combination of persons engaged in such insurrec- 
 tion have threatened to grant pretended letters of mtu'que to authorize the bearers 
 thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citiz(*ns of the 
 country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas, and iu the waters of the 
 United States; and whereasan Executive proclaniatiou has already been issued requiring 
 the perscms engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist, and therefor culling out 
 the militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in 
 extraordinary session to deliberate and determine thereon ; the President, with a view 
 to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the protection of the public peace, and 
 the lives ami property of its orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until 
 Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on said unlawful proceedings, or until 
 the same shall have ceased, has further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade 
 of the ports within the States aforesaid, iu pursuance of the laws of the United States 
 
1 ' w-ii 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 321 
 
 attacked 
 
 iind tele- 
 h of that 
 ril in case 
 
 railroad, 
 ixpensive 
 'herald.) 
 :)ii papers 
 Jaltiinore, 
 t's procla- 
 
 hereafter 
 
 5entatives 
 resident's 
 
 blockade 
 on.) This 
 ceived oq 
 
 New York 
 
 issued ex- 
 la. {Stat. 
 
 Seward's 
 (ilamatioii 
 Office May 
 
 V his post. 
 
 was tele- 
 
 [itains the 
 
 a procla- 
 
 d States. 
 
 privateer 
 
 May. Oq 
 the proc- 
 ated ver- 
 
 £iiown, no 
 
 ade of the 
 
 II out In 1 -^ 
 , and Toxns, 
 onformably 
 throufjhoiit 
 sh insiirrec- 
 tlie bearers 
 ziiiis of tlie 
 iters of the 
 3(1 requiring 
 ciilliiiji out 
 Congress iu 
 vith a view 
 peace, and 
 ,tiou8, until 
 gs, or until 
 a blockade 
 litod States 
 
 and the laws of nations in such cases provided. For tl'is purpose a roinpctont t'orco 
 will be ]»osted so as to prcvtMit tlu^ entrance and exit of vessels from Mic ]»(>rts iifore- 
 said. If, therefore, witli a view to violate siu^h blockade, any vess(d shall attiMiipt to 
 leave any of the said ports, she will bcj duly warned by the (iitniinander of one of said 
 blockading vessels, who will indorse on Ium' register the fact and datiMif such warning, 
 and if the same vessel shall again attempt toenti^r or leave a blocka<le port, she will l>e 
 captured and sent to the nearest convenient port, for such proceedings against her and 
 her cargo as may bo deemed advisable. 
 
 A reference to the proclamation, as correctly given above, will show 
 that tliere were many variations from the ori{j;inal; tlie most impoitant 
 of which were the omission of the fori'.al parts of the i>roclamation ; of 
 the worda " for the collection of the revenue ;" and of the declarations 
 as to piracy. 
 May 2, 1801, Lord Lyons wrote to Lord Russell as follows: w-i ^t.-.-j^ 
 
 I have the honor to inclose a copy of a note by which I acknowledged thii receipt of 
 Mr. Seward's note of the '27th ultimo, announcing the intention of this Government to 
 set on toot a blockadfs of the southern ports. I was careful to so word iny noti; as to 
 show that I accepted Mr. Seward's communication as an aunoiineemeiit of an inteiitii.ii 
 to set on foot a blockade, not as a notification of the actual coinmeucemout of one. I 
 believe that most of my colleagues made answers to the same sense. 
 
 I have the honor to transmit to your lordship copies of the President's pnxdamatioii 
 announcing the extension of the blockade to the pcu'ts of Virginia and North Carolina, 
 which have been sent to mo in a blank cover from the State Department. (, I'ol, I, p. 
 24.) 
 
 Inclosnre, Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward, April 2!), 1801 : 
 
 The undersigned, Her Hritannic Majesty's envoy extracu'dinary and minister pleni- 
 pot(!ntiary to tlie United States of America, has the honor to acknowledge tin; reccipr 
 of a note of the day before yesterday's <late from the Secretary of State, eommunieat- 
 iiig to him a proclamation which announces, among other things, that a blockade of 
 the ports of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, ^lississippi, Louisiana, and 
 Texas will be set on foot, in pursuance of the law of the I'liited States ami tiie law of 
 nations, and that for this purpose a competent force will be posted so as to prevent 
 the (mtrance and exit of vessels. ( Fol, I, p. 25.) 
 
 The Secretary of State has, moreover, done tin; undersigned the honor to inform him 
 in the same note that it is intended to set on foot also a blockade of the ports of Vir- 
 ginia and North Carolina. 
 
 In the House of Commons Mr. Ewart asked l^ord Russell whether the gov- 
 ernment intended to place the British naval force in the Gulf of Mexico on '*'" ^ 
 sufflcieiit footing, and if privateers sailing under Hag of recoguized power would be 
 treated as pirates. 
 
 Lord Russell replied that " Her Majesty's government heard the other day that the 
 Confederate States have issued letters of inanpie, and to-day wo have heard that it is 
 intended there shall bo a blockade of all the ports of the Southern States ;" and after 
 stating that some of the questions had been submitted to thelaw-otHcersof the Crown, 
 he said: " We have not been involved iu any way in that contest, by any act or giving 
 anv advice in the matter, and, for God's sake, lot us, if possible, keep out of it." ( I'ol 
 l\,p. 482.) 
 
 Steamship Persia, from New York, arrived at Queeustown. h„i m,v t. 
 
 Steamship Persia arrrived at Liverpool. m,, .,. 
 
 House of Commons, Mr. Gregory asked Lord Russell the following (lues- 
 tioii: " M. The Government of the United States having refused to relin- mivo. 
 
 (juisli the b.dligerent right of issuing_letters of inar([ne, the seven Southern 
 confederated and sovereign States having become to the United States a separate and 
 independent and foreign power, whether Her Majesty's government recognize the right 
 of the president of tlio southern confederacy to issue letters of maniue ; ami it so, 
 whether our minister at NVashington has been notitied to that ellect?" (Vol. 11', p. 
 482.) 
 
 Lord Russell, in reply, stated that, with respect to belligerent rights in the case of 
 certain portions of a State being in insurrection, there was a preceilent whicii seems 
 applicable to this purpose in the year 182."). The British government at that time al- 
 lowed the belligerent rights of the provisional government of Greece, and, in conse- 
 quence of that allowanc, the Turkish government made a remonstrance. I may state the 
 nature of that remonstrance and the reply of Mr. Canning. " The Turkish government 
 complained that the British government allowed to the Greeks a belligerent character, 
 and observed that it appeared to forget that to subjects iu rebellion no national charaeter 
 could properlv belong.'' But the British govorumont informed Mr. Stratford Canning 
 21 H 
 
 '■■m 
 
 vl ■■! 
 
 
 m 
 
322 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 I 
 
 tliat the " character of belligerency was not so much a principle as a fact ; that a cer- 
 tain (leKi'eeof force and consistency acquired by any niaHS of population enyajjed in war 
 entitle*! that population to be treated an a bellifforent, and even if their title were ques- 
 tionable, rendered it the intercut, well understood, of all civilized nations so to treat 
 them. For what was the alternative ? A power or a community (call it which you 
 will) which was at war witli another, and which covered the sea witli its cruisers, must 
 either ha acknowledged as a belligerent or dealt with as a pirate;" which latter charac- 
 ter, as applied to the Greeks, was loudly disclaimed. In a separate dispatch of the 
 same date, (12tli of October, IH^f),) Sir Stratford Canning was reminded that when the 
 British government acknowledged the right of either belligerent to visit and detain 
 British merchant-vessels having enemy's property on board, and to ccmfiscate such 
 pro])erty, it was necessarily implied, as a condition of such acknowledgment, that the 
 detention was for the purpose of bringing the vessels detained bufore an established 
 court of prize, and that confiscation did not take place until after coi demnatiun by 
 such competent tribunal. The (juestion has been under the consideration of the gov- 
 ernment. They have consulted the law-otHcers of the Crown. The attorney and so- 
 licitor-general and the Queen's advocate, and the government have come to tlie 
 opinion that the southern confederacy of America, according to those principles, Avhicli 
 seem to them to be just principles, must be treated as a belligerent." ( Vol. IF, p. 4^3.) 
 House of Commons — belligerent rights at sea. — Question tiiereupon by Mr. Wali)olo, 
 who consulted the government as to its introduction. Viscount Palmers- 
 1961, May 7. tou, ill reply, stated that " the house will bear in mind that my noble friend 
 (Lord John Russell) stated last evening that this question of international 
 rights, as connected with belligerent rights at sea, is of grave and complicated charac- 
 ter; that it is under the consideriition of the government, and until the government 
 siiall be in a condition, after consulting its legal advisers, to make some distincit com- 
 munication upon tlie subject, it would be inexpedient, and indeed impossible, for them 
 to enter into any discussion upon the matter." ( Vol. IV, p. 484.) 
 
 House of Couimons — as to privateering?. — Mr. Forater inquired as to 
 status of Jiritish subjects serving on, or assisting in equipment 
 of |)rivateer for rebels, and whether such privateer is to be 
 
 subj(;ct to forft'iture. Inquiry was made of secretary of state of home 
 
 department. The reply was as follows : 
 
 " Sir Gkohgk Lewis : Sir it is in the contemplation of Her Mnjosty's government to 
 issue a proclamation for the purpose of cautioning all Her Majesty's sulijects against 
 any interference in the hostilities between the Northern and Southern States of Amer- 
 ica. In that proclamation the general t^ll'ect of the common and statute law on the 
 matter will be stated." ( Vol. IV, p. 48 1.) 
 
 1S6I, May 9. 
 
 1861, Mrj- 10. 
 
 MaerlO. 
 
 Receipt by British government of Lord Lyons's note of April 
 22, inclosing unoiticial newspaper copy of blockade proclama- 
 tion of 19th of April. 
 
 House of Lords — question: United Statesj civil war; priva- 
 teering. 
 Earl Derby said : 
 
 I un<lerstand that a proclamation is about to be issued by Her Majesty's government 
 on the subject of privateering and of belligerent rights. I hope that in tiiat proclama- 
 tion, or in some other way, a most distinct and emphatic warning will be given to all 
 seamen in the service of Her Majesty as to tlio conditions upon which they will en- 
 gage — if they choose to enter upon such hazardous enterprise — in the system of priva- 
 teering. There should be no doubt left on tlieir minds, but the fullest and plainest in- 
 timation should be publicly made to tlieni, whether, if th(!y do engage iu such a service, 
 they will or will not iu extremity be entitled to expect any protection or interferpiicc 
 on the part of this country. I hope, my noble friend will state to your lordships 
 whether the government have come to any conclusion upon this question ; ami if so, 
 whether they are prepared forthwith to issue a public and emphatic notification of the 
 course they intend to pursue, and the consequences likely to result to British seamen 
 from a disregard of their warning. 
 
 Earl Gkanvillk. The noble earl, by the manner in which he has approached +lio 
 subject, has evinced a becoming appreciation of the diflttculties which may ari.se to our- 
 selves from the unfortunate state of things in the United State. With r<!spect, how- 
 ever, to the question of the belligerent rijihts of the parties now engaged in that un- 
 happy contest, the noble earl has not asked for any expression of opinion on tlie part 
 of tlie government, and therefore I am absolved from entering into a discussion of that 
 most important, difilcult, and delicate subject. But the noble earl has inquired whether 
 
it. ; that a cer- 
 iiKiiK«<l in war 
 itle were <iue8- 
 18 so to tieiit 
 it which you 
 crniHors, iiiiiHt 
 1 latter charac- 
 ispatch of the 
 ;hat when the 
 (it and detain 
 (mfiscate such 
 neiit, that the 
 in estuhli.shed 
 deni nation by 
 >u of the gov- 
 torney and so- 
 come to tlie 
 nciph^H, which 
 o/./r,;>.4S3.) 
 y Mr. Walpole, 
 ouut Palniers- 
 ly noble friend 
 international 
 icated charac- 
 ) government 
 distinct com- 
 sible, for them 
 
 iiirert .ia to 
 1 equipment 
 er is to be 
 ite of liouie 
 
 govcmment to 
 bji'cts against 
 tates of Aiuer- 
 to law on the 
 
 ote of April 
 e proclaina- 
 
 warj piiva- 
 
 '8 government 
 ;hat proclama- 
 l)e given to all 
 1 they will en- 
 stem of priva- 
 iid plainest iu- 
 snc-h a service, 
 >r intcrfcfrenco 
 our lordsliips 
 on ; and if so, 
 fication of the 
 Sritisli seamen 
 
 [>proached +ho 
 ly arise to onr- 
 njspect, bow- 
 ed in that un- 
 <n on tlie part 
 cussion of that 
 uired whether 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 323 
 
 18A1, MnrU. 
 
 1861, May 13. 
 
 May 14. 
 
 1461, Mny 14. 
 
 iwil, Mny 17. 
 
 |t is onr intention to issue a proclamation, warning the subjects of Her. Majesty against 
 In any manner de))artiiig from tliat neutrality which Her Majesty herself is so desirous 
 to observe. To that question, as the noble earl has stated, an answer has already been 
 given in " another place," namely, that it is the intention of the government, according 
 to j>recedent, to issue a proclamation, giving such warning to all tiie sul)ji'cts of Her 
 Majesty. The ])r«fciso wording of the proclamation is a matter of considcialde impor- 
 tance and dilHculty, requiring some deliberation, and we have thought it right to ob- 
 tain the best advice in framing it; hut I may state that the govornment are anxious 
 to make it us plain and emphatic as possible. ( Vol. IV, p. 4Hr>.) 
 
 The British government allege that Mr. Dallas handed to the 
 minister of foreign affairs the Department of State circular of 
 April 20, and its accompanying copy of the proclamation of the block- 
 ade of Southern jjorts. There is no evidence of this fact in the Depart- 
 ment of State. 
 
 Queen's proclamation of neutrality a(!Cording belligerent 
 rights to South. ( Vol. I, Claims, tfcc, p. 41.) 
 
 In the evening Mr. Adams arrived in London. M«y 13. 
 
 On the morning of this day Mr. Adams was ready for busi- 
 ness. The Queen's proclamation was issued without consulta- 
 tion with the United States minister, even before it was practicable for 
 Lord Russell to see him. 
 
 Receipt by British Foreign Office of official copy of President 
 Lincoln's proclamation of April 19, with Lord Lyons's note of 
 Aj)ril 21. 
 
 Receipt of Lord Lyons's note of May 2, communicating ofticir.l 
 copy of second proclamation of blockade, dated Ai)ril 27, and extending 
 blockade to [lorts of Virginia and North Carolina. 
 
 Mr. Adams's note to Mr. Seward giving an account of an in- M,y \?. 
 terview with Lord Russell, in which he said to Lord Russell : 
 
 I must be permitted to expi'ess the great regret I had felt on learning tin- decision to 
 issue the Queen's proclamation, which at once raised tlie insurgents to tlic level nt' a 
 bellig(!reiit state, and still more the language used in regard to it l)y llir Majesty's 
 ministers in botii houses of Parliament before and since. VViiatever iniglir, be the 
 design, there could be no shadow of doubt that tlie etl'ect of these events liad Iteeu to 
 encourage tlie friends of the disatiected here. The tone of the press and if private 
 opinion indicated it strongly. I then alluded more especially to the brief report of 
 the lord chancellor's speech on Tiiursday last, in wliicli he Iiud characterized the rebel- 
 lious portion of my country as a belligerent state, and the war that was going on as 
 jiistiim bellum. 
 
 To this his lordship replied that he thought more stress was laid upon tlujso i'vents 
 than th(;y deserved. The fact was that a imcessity seemed to exist to delino the 
 course of the government in regard to the participation of the sul)jects of Oreat Britain 
 in the iiniiending conflict. To that end, the legal (|iu'slions involv«'d had been referred 
 to those othcers most conversant with them, and their advice had been taken in shaj)- 
 iiig the result. Tlieir conclusion had been that, as a (|uestion merely of fact, a war 
 existed. A considerable number of the States, at least seven, oc^cupying a widts extent 
 of country, were in open resistance, while one or more of the others were associating 
 themselves in the same struggle, and as yet tliere were no indications of any other re- 
 sult than a ci>nte8t of arms more or less severe. In many preceding cases much less 
 formidable demonstrations had been recognized. Under such circunistancts it seemed 
 scarcely possible to avoid speaking of tliis in tlio technical sense iMjuntitm hdlum, that 
 is, a war of two sides, without in any way applying an opinion of its justice, as well 
 as to withhold an endeavor, so far as possible, to bring tlie inanagenuMit of it within 
 the rules of modern civilized warfare. This was all that was contemplated by the 
 Queen's proclamation. It was designed to show the jmrixirt of existing laws, and to 
 explain to British subjects their liabilities in case they should engage in the war. And 
 however strongly the people of the United States might feel against their (Micinies, it 
 was hardly to be supposed that in practice they would now vary from tlieir uniformly 
 humane policy heretofore in endeavoring to assuage and mitigate the honors of war. 
 
 To all which I answered that under other circnnistances I should be very ready to, 
 give my cheerful assent to this view of his lordship's; but I must be porniiltcd frankly 
 to remark that the action taken seemed, at least to my mind, a little more r.ipid than 
 was absolutely called for by the occasion. It might be recollected that the new ad- 
 ministration liiid scarcely had sixty days to develop its jiolicy ; that the extent to whieL 
 
 ■'S 
 
324 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 « * 
 
 ill! (Icpiirtiiicnts of tlio GoveniiiuMit liiul hcon di^nioralizod in tlin urt'ccding adiiiiniH- 
 triifion wjissmcly iindcrstoiHl licro, at It;ast in part ; that tll(^ very <>r;;aiii/,afi()ii upon 
 wliicli any fntum a(!ti(>n was to lin pi't'difatt'd was to Ix- renovated and piirilied lici'oro 
 a ii:;-' conld lie entertained oC enerj^t^tic! and elt'eetive lalior. 'I'iie eonse(|nenee iiad 
 lieeii tliat it was l»nt Jnst einer^iin^ frcnn its dil'tienities, and liejiimiin^; to develop the 
 ])o\v<'i- of tlu! country to eope with tliis reliellion, wlien tin' Uritisli ^^overnnn-nl tooli 
 tlie initiativi^ and decided praetieaily tiiat it is a strnj;;;;le of two sides; and, Inrlliin-- 
 nnire, it itron<nineed tlu' insnr;;ents to l»e a liellij;('rent state l)efor(! tliey liad ever 
 sliown fiu'ir capacity to nniintaiii any l<iii(l (d' warfare wlnitever, except witiiin on*- of 
 tin-ir own liarbors and under every possililt! advantaj^e. It considered iIkii.i a niarun! 
 jtower I'efore tiniy Innl ever exidldted a sin;f!e jtrivateer on tlie ocjean. I said tlnit I 
 was not aware tliat a Hiiii;l(! arnu'd vessel Inul yet been issued from any port nntler tlie 
 control of tbese people. (Vol. I, p. IH'.\.) 
 
 wn, jumn. Mr. Sewjird wrote to Mr. Adams : 
 
 Every instruction yon llav(^ received from this Department is full of evidence of tlio 
 fact tlnit tlie principal dani;er in tiie present insurrection winch the I'rcNsulent has 
 appreh(^nd(!d is that »)f forei<^n intervention, aid, or sympatliy ; and especially of such 
 intervention, aid, or symitatliy on tlie jtart of the j;ove.innient of (Jreat Hiitain. 
 
 The Justice of this apprehension has been vindicated by tlio followiiif^ facts, namely: 
 Tlu! issue of the Queen's proclamation, remarkable, first, for the circumstances under 
 which it was made, namely, on the very <lay of your arrival in London, which had 
 lieen anticipated s<i far as to jirovide for your n-ccption by the British secretary, but 
 without atfordiiif;- you the interviiiw inomised before any decisive action should bo 
 adojitcd ; secondly, the teiiorof the proclamation itself, wliicli seems to reco^fnize, in a 
 vaj^ne manner, iiuleud, but still does seem to reeo;;iiizo, the insnr<r».'nrs as a hvlliiit'i'citt 
 nati(mal poiirr. That proclamation, unmoditied and unexpIaimMl, would leave us no 
 alt(a'iialiv(! but to regard the ^ioverninent of (ireat Hritain as (luestioniuj;- our free exer- 
 cise of all the lifrhts of sell'-ddense jfuaranteed to us by our Constitution and the laws 
 of nature and of nations, to suppress the insurrection. (V^ol. I, p. l.Kj.) 
 
 .in„. X. Mr. Suwaid again wrote to Mr. Adams, June 8, ISOl : 
 
 Your conversation with tiie British se(;retary iiieidtnitally br(Uii;ht iiit) debate the 
 Queen's late proclamation, (whicli seiMiis to lis (l<'sijrii,.(l tj) raise tlie insurf^euts to the 
 level of a bellij;erent state,) tlie lanf;uat;(! emiiloycd by Her ilaj(.'sty's ininist(;rs in both 
 houses of I'arliaiiient, the tone t)f the public press anil of [irivate oiiiiiion, and especially 
 a speech of the lord chancellor, in whici' he had characterized the insnr<^ents as a bel- 
 lijferent state, and the civil war which they are waginjj against the United States as 
 jimtiim hi'Uiim. 
 
 The opinions which you oxi)res8ed on these matters, and their obvious tendency to 
 encourage the insurrection and lo protract and aggravate tlie civil war, are just, and 
 meet our approbation. At the same tinn! it is the purpose of this Government, if pos- 
 sible, consistently with the national welfare anil honor, to have no serious controversy 
 with Great Britain at all ; and if this shall ultimately prove impossible, then to have 
 both the defensive position and the clear right m our side. With this view, this Gov- 
 ernment, as you are made aware by my disjjat j1i No. 10, has determined to pass over 
 witliontoliicial complaint the publications of the British press, manifestatiims of adverse 
 individual opinion in social life, and the s[)(H!clies of British statesmen, and even those 
 of Her ilajesty's ministers in l'arliament,so long as they are not authoritatively a<lopted 
 hy Her Majesty's government. We honor and respect the frisedom of debate and the 
 freedom of the press. We indulge no apprehiMisious of danger to onr rights and inter- 
 ests from any discussion to wliiidi they may be subjected, in either form, in aiij' place. 
 Sure as we are that the transaction now going on in our country involves the progress 
 of civilization and humanity, and ecpially sure that our attitude in it is right, and no 
 hiss sure that our press and our statesmen are equal in ability and influence to any in 
 Europe, we shall have no cause to grieve if Gri^at Ihituin shall leave to us the defense 
 of the independence of nations and the rights of human nature. (Vol. I, p. 195.) 
 
 j.meu. Mr. Adams wrote to Mr. Seward, June 14, 18G1 : 
 
 I next approached the most delicate portion of my task. I descanted upon the irri- 
 tation produced in An;erica by the Queen's proelamatiou, upon theconstrnction almost 
 universally given to it, as designed to aid the insurgents by raising them to the rank 
 of a belligerent state, and upon the very decided tone taken by the President in my 
 dispatches in case any such design was reaily entertained. I added that from my own 
 observation of what had since occurred here. I had not been able to convince myself of 
 the existence of such a design. (Vol. I, p. 198.) 
 
 i«(»,jur.e2. Earl Russell wrote to Sir F. Bruce, June 2, 18(55 : 
 
 I received, on the 2r)th ultimo, your dispatch of the lOtb ultimo, inclosing a copy, 
 taken from a newspa^>er, of a proclamation issued by the Presuieu; of the Uuitud 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 325 
 
 njT adniinls- 
 /,;irii)ii ii|iiiii 
 litird licidrt) 
 
 ((III'.IICV lliltl 
 
 (It'vcldp Mil) 
 'iiiiicnt tiMik 
 iiid, riirtli(!r- 
 icy liiid i'vvr 
 vithiii (Ml'' of 
 iM.i a lUiirtiii; 
 I Hiiid tliat I 
 lit uiulcr tlie 
 
 donee of tlio 
 'nvsidi'iit has 
 ially of siicU 
 I'itaiii. 
 
 acts, iianioly : 
 taiicos iiiidtT 
 II, wliicli Inid 
 i((M't'tary, but 
 ion should bo 
 juojiiiizc, in a 
 18 a InUitjen-nt 
 d Uavt! ns no 
 olir free cxiT- 
 and the hiws 
 
 SOI : 
 
 b ) (hihato the 
 ii'^onts to the 
 listi.Ts in both 
 ind especially 
 fonts as a bel- 
 ited States as 
 
 8 tendency to 
 , are jnsf, and 
 nnieiit, if pos- 
 is controversy 
 , then to have 
 iow, this Gov- 
 1 to pass over 
 ons of adverse 
 n<l even those 
 rively adopted 
 ebate and the 
 ;hts and inter- 
 in any place. 
 s the proii;ress 
 i right, and no 
 >nce to any in 
 ns the defense 
 I, p. 19 J.) 
 
 npon the irri- 
 rnetion almost 
 iin to the rank 
 esident in my 
 ■j from my own 
 'iuce myself of 
 
 ilosing a copy, 
 of the Uuitttd 
 
 States on that day, declaring, anionjy other nrntters, <hat "arniod resistance to tlit^ 
 authority of this (iovcninieiit," luinnly, the ({o\ eminent of the IJiited Stati-s, "may 
 1)(^ iiHtirdi'd as virtually at an end; and tht^ persons by whom tiiat rt-sistaiife, as well 
 as the opeiiit ions of iusur^jiMit eruiscrs, were ilireeted, are fu;jitives or eapli\e,s." 
 
 On the day loUowinj; the receipt of your dispatch intelliy;eiice reached this country 
 of tli(^ ca|ttureof President Davis by the military forces of the llniti'd States. 
 
 In this Htat<' of things Her Majesty's ;;i)veiiinieiit lost no time in comninnic atinij with 
 the ijoveriinient of the Em)ieror of the l''rencli as to the course which should be ]inr- 
 8Ued by the two governments ; and while these cominunicatioiis were in progress 1 
 received otlieially from Mr. Adams, on the ;{(tth ultimo, a copy of the I'resideiit's ]trocla- 
 luation of the Kith. 
 
 It w(Mild indeed have been more satisfactory if the Government of the United States 
 had acconiiianied the communication of the President's itroclaniiition with a dei'lara- 
 ti(»n that they formally rtMionnced the exercise as rc<;ards neutrals of the rif^hts of a 
 l»elliy;eient ; but Her Majesty's f^overnment considered that, in tlm existiiijj postiiri; of 
 ntfairs, tlie delay of any formal renunciation to that effect did not ailbrd to ncntral 
 jiowers siilhcieiit warrant for coiit inning to admit the iiossession of a bcllif^ercnt char- 
 acter by a couffdeialion of States which had been actually dissolved. Tln' late presi- 
 dent of the so-called Confederate States has been captured, and transported as a priso- 
 ner to Fort Monnu^ ; the armies hitherto kept in the lield by the Confederate States 
 have, for the most part, surrendered or dispersed ; and to continue to recMif^nize those 
 States as bellijfcreiirs would not only hv. inconsistent with the actual condition of 
 affairs, but mij;htleadto much embarrassment and comjilication in the relations be- 
 tween neutral powers and the (iovernment of the United States. 
 
 Her Majesty's ^fovcrnmenl have, accordinj^ly, after cominuni(!ation with the j^overn- 
 inent of tlie Emperor of tlm French, determined to consider the war which has lately 
 l>revailed between the Unitiid States and the so-called Confederate States of North 
 America to have ceased dv fado ; and on that jrronnd, tlit^y recof^nize the re-establish- 
 ment of j)eac(! within the whole territory of which the United States, before the com- 
 liienceiuent of the civil war, were in undisturbed possession. (Vol. I, p. 320.) 
 
 From the time when the i)rocl.aiiiiiti()n of neutrality was issued until 
 the withdrawal of the eoiicession of l)ellifj:erent ri,jj;hts to tlie rebels, the 
 United States Government were constantly nialving representations to 
 the British government on this subject. These rei)resentations will be 
 found runnino- through the whole correspondence on the subject, as 
 printed in the volumes of Claim.s. 
 
 The rights conceded to the rebels were partially withdrawn June 2, 
 180.J, (To/. 7, Claims, page 378,) and tinally withdrawn October 13, 18G5. 
 Vol. I, Claims, page 387.) 
 
 The following extract from a letter from George Bemis, esq., to the 
 Secretary of State, dated Kome, April 20, 1870, directs attention to 
 some of the more important parts of the correspondence contained in the 
 volumes entitled " Claims against Great Britain," and to some import- 
 ant correspondence not contained in that compilation. This letter was 
 written after the receipt of the second volume, which fact explains some 
 apparent mistak<?s of the writer : 
 
 I befj; to call the notice of the Department to tiie grave and fundamental omhuions, 
 misarnin{iemvn1ii,and misdcuiynutionn, contained in the Conqntation ax than far exivnlvd. It 
 is principally in reference to these that 1 have hoped to make my coninuinication of 
 some service to the undertakinj^ for the future. 
 
 I must premise that I do not profess even now to jjive a full a' .1 "iiable inventory 
 of what must be; supplied or explained, but only to snyj;est such deliciencies as liav(i 
 thus far met my eye, or of which I have the means at hand of inquiring into. Thus I 
 beg to particularize that I have little or no opportunity here, from my own memoran- 
 da, to inqniiti into the care or completene.-.s with which the mannxcri/tt (hith- 
 erto iinpHhlinhvd) dispatches of the Department which 1 had left marked for publi- 
 cation have been copied and printed. The Secretary may be aware that I gave a 
 winter's work to that task, leaving in paiier-marks and pencil annotations in the man- 
 uscript volumes of the archives, to facilitate future reference to documents and parts 
 of documents to be extracted. I desire, therefore, to be explicitly understood as ex- 
 cluding all that portiou of the work from criticism. I would only remark in passing, 
 however, that I think, from some nienioranda which I have preserved, that 1 must h.ivo 
 marked in for publication (at least) one of Mr. Adams's manuscript dispatches, Xo. 125, 
 Adams to Seward, August 8, IdOl, (iu which he speaks of the British govenimeut 
 
 i :i 
 
 ei. 
 
 .;!■ 
 
326 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 
 m 
 
 rJ! ill: 
 
 ii ! 
 
 il 
 
 J 
 
 1 ( - 
 
 I' 
 
 
 Deb., vol. Ifiii, piifjH ir)»54.) I <l<> nut 
 inpiler, but to rank it ainon^ " DcbnteH " 
 
 rogai'diiiK tho noparation of th« Union as a fixod faol,) and the Qurfii'mtpvich of proroijn- 
 tUtn of I'urlidnient of AutjUHt (5, 18(51, in wliicili lier MritiHli Majesty nays — roiteratin^j 
 and pcisiMtiny in bolligoront recojjnition, wlien Mr. S»nvard had n'|indiattHl Hncli a 
 conHtruotinn, tivon ho lato an An^HHt 4, IHfilt, (Seward to Lijonn, Amimt 4, lrt(iU, Ala- 
 bama Coinpilation, vol. 1, p. tiHH) — "Tlio diHHtMiHionH wliicli anmo Honut niontliH a^ro in 
 tilt) United StattiH of North America liave unl'ortunat(>ly aHHiuned tho character of open 
 war. Her Majesty, deeply lamentin^^ thin calamitons re^nlt, has duterminiHl, in com- 
 mon with tho other powers of Europe, to preserve a strict neutrality between tho con- 
 tending parties;" two docuniuuts which I do not find in thu Compilation, and which I 
 should deem important. 
 
 But of tho grave and fundamental omissions and misplacements which I would 
 poi ut out us essential to be supplied aud rectitied, I would instance at least the follow- 
 ing : 
 
 The Varliameninry announcement of Urithh recoqnxtion of rebel heUiffer exnj, of May 
 C, 1861, by Lord J. Russell,* (Hansard's Pari. ' ' ' " 
 
 imagine that this ha^ been overlooked by the com{ 
 
 as matter for the appendix, as is poriiaps designeit, is as little allowable as to |)Ut the 
 title-page, of a volume into its appendix. Uelligerentrecognition, in my view, was not 
 ert'ected l)y the prochunation of .neutrality of May V.l, but by what was done and writ- 
 ten May (), 1H61, including, besides this otficial parliamentary declaration or speech of 
 Lord KiiHsell, his two governmental dispatches of the same day, addressed to Lords 
 Cowley and Lyons, the British ambassadors at Paris and Washington, res|»ectiveiy. 
 
 The Queen's proclamation of neutrality, (which, by the way, is indexed in the com- 
 pilatit>n under Xolificaiion of Blockade, vol. 1, i)age .'>,) on tlio contrary, was never 
 eommnnicated or intended to be communicated, diplomatically and otticially, to the 
 United States, [see Lord Russell's treatment of this matter. Blue Book, IH(!2, No. 1, p. 
 27 — Lord RitsHcIl to Lyons, May 15— where his lordship is willing that it shall circulato 
 in the rebel States, but seems especially careful to give no instruction about commu- 
 nicating it at Washington ;] but, on the other hand, what was resolved upon and de- 
 clared by the British government, at tho date of May (5, was diplomatically and otticially 
 communicated to the United States June l.'i, following; aud (I am sorry to say) to tho 
 rebels on or about July liO, through the Ihtnch-TrcHcot mission, at Charleston, S. C. 
 (Compilation, vol. 1, page 135.) If the honorable Secretary has ever scrutinized this 
 point, he will have found, I tliiiik, that both Lord Russell ami Mr. Seward consider tho 
 coinn.innication of British aud French recognition of rebel belligerency to hav ken 
 effect, or, at least, been attem))ted, in Washington, in the personal interview o wo 
 
 foreign ministers with Mr. Seward, Juno 15, 18(51, described in the Brit lo 
 
 Book, 1H()2, No. 3, p. 9, (Compilation, vol. 1, p. (52,) under in<lex caption J)eriunithtn 
 of I'arix ; (I) aud in the two dispatches, Siivard to Dayton, of June 17, (Comi»ila1ion, 
 vol. 1, p. ()(),) and Seward to Adama, of June 19, 18(51, (ib., p. 64.) Ho will have 
 found. fnrtluMMuoro, that the instruction on Lord Russell's part was originally con- 
 cocted May 13, though bearing date May IS, (Compilation, p. HO, note ; ib., p. 104, 
 ^^ FostHcri})! :") [this important dispatch is omitted from page 50 of tho Compilation, t 
 its proper ])lace, and given on page 107, under inclosure, limsell to Adams, of 
 August 2d, 18(51, ib., p. 105;] and that the French instruction to Mercier, couununi- 
 catod in tlio same personal interview in Washington, bears date "May 11, 1861," 
 (P>ein/a Yellow Book for 18(51; Les Ctats-Unis, pages 93-96;) which communica- 
 tion, it seems to me, ought in historic fairness, at least, to have made part of the 
 "Alabama Compilation ;" though I have observed that it has been omitted. For 
 further reference to Mr. Sewanrs sagacious aud correct perception of the bearing of 
 the British communication of rebel recognition dated May 18, cloaked under the name 
 of the '^Declaration of Paris," I would refer the honorable Secretary, in addition, to 
 "Compilation," top of p. 194, given under index caption "Revocation (!) of Bellig- 
 erent Recognition;" aud to Compilation, page 196, at the bottom of tho page, under 
 same index caption, where Mr. Seward speaks of "the promised direct communication, 
 bringiny it (rebel belligerent recognition) authoritatively before this Government in the 
 form chosen by the British government itself." As for Lord Russell's and Lord Lyons's un- 
 derstanding that the instruction of May 18 was intended for the formal communica- 
 tiou to tho United States of the action taken by the British government on this head, 
 see Bussell to Lyons, 2d dispatch of May 18, (Compilation, p. 51, three to first five lines ; 
 also, the last two lines of the same dispatch, where Lord Russell speaks of " commu- 
 nicating" [this "admission of the belligerent rights of the Confederate States of 
 America,"] " at Montgomery, to the President of the so-styled Confederate States.") 
 See, also, Cowley to Russell, of May 9, (Comiiilation, p. 50, second paragraph from top,) 
 where Cowley quotes Thouvenol as " to precedents" ''for recognizing belligerent rights ;" 
 Lyons to Russell, June 17, 1861, (Compilation, p. 63,) where Mr. Seward for the moment 
 appears to have thought that the scheme was not a covert aud delusive one, but a 
 bona fide attempt to reform tho declaration of Paris ; and Lyons's instruction to Bunch of 
 
 * Published on page 482, Vol. IV, Claims, «&c. 
 t It is referred to by a foot-note ou page 50. 
 
!/i n/prorofjn- 
 — ruittiratiiifj 
 intod Niicli a 
 4, lrt(i:{, Ala- 
 oiitliH a^o ill 
 
 ICttT of ()|»»'Il 
 
 imd, in coiii- 
 t'OIl tlio COII- 
 
 aiul which I 
 
 lich I would 
 t the foUow- 
 
 •"Pi/i of Mny 
 ) I do not 
 ,'"l)f.lmtes" 
 H to put tho 
 cw, waH not 
 110 and writ- 
 
 or H|MM!ch of 
 
 Hed to LordH 
 •ectively. 
 
 in the coin- 
 , was nrvcr 
 iaiiv, to the 
 ^()-4, No. 1, p. 
 lall circnhito 
 out coiniiin- 
 pon and do- 
 md oflHt'iully 
 ) sav) to tho 
 h'Hton, S. C. 
 itinized this 
 consider tho 
 
 hav ken 
 V o wo 
 
 hit 10 
 
 Dcrtu ration 
 'oiiiltihitioii, 
 J will have 
 s^inally con- 
 
 ib., p. 104, 
 3mpilation,t 
 Adams, of 
 , couiinuni- 
 11, 1861," 
 30iuinuuica- 
 part of tho 
 itted. For 
 
 bearing of 
 er the name 
 iddition, to 
 !) of BoUig- 
 page, under 
 imunication, 
 tment in the 
 Lyons's un- 
 lommunica- 
 1 this head, 
 t five lines; 
 tf "commu- 
 e States of 
 be States.") 
 1 from top,) 
 <mt rights ;" 
 the moment 
 
 one, but a 
 
 to Bunch of 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 32? 
 
 Juljiii, 1801, (Compilation, p. I'iH,) where L«ud LyoiiH inakeH tlio di»i)ateh of May 18, 
 (No. 1.) tht! very veliich) of eoimnunicating belligerent recognition to the rebel eon- 
 federacy, through Mr. Hunch, tho UritiNh consul, resident at Charleston. ScmUIi Caro- 
 lina. Ihit if anything were wanting to coinpletu this eharaeteri/ation of the selienie, 
 it is to be found in tho liuHvU-Trixvot |)ai>ers,* where Consul Ihnndi puts down, in 
 black and white, that tho object of the mission was to go a step furtlu-r in i>elligerent 
 recognition toward full rt;cognitiou of couf<'derate independence than had lieen done 
 oil tlie (jth of May. It is for this reason that I have already ventured in my former 
 letter to press upon the .Secretary's attention tho importance of these papers, and my 
 earnest hope, if no scruple of delicacy toward Mr. Trescot exists on the part of the 
 Government, and no fear of their existing national hostilities, tiiat tiiey may be given 
 to the world. I would add, in respect to these papers, that Mr. Trescot accompanied 
 them with Southern newspaper-cuttings, showing the republication in those Journals, 
 in tho summer of IHft'i, of the liritish parliamentary do(Miiuents of May *i, 18(11, Ac! , 
 which cuttings I hope will make a part of the compilation publication, if such ))iil)li- 
 catiou of them is ever to be made; and that Mr. Trescut speaks, in his record memoran- 
 dum of the mission, of a long "private" letter of Lord Lyons to Kiinch, which, if pro- 
 curable, would probably be worth more than all tho other documents jitit togetlier. 
 I am not certain, however, that Mr. Trescot did not orally inform Mr. .Sanford, through 
 whose patriotic exertions these valuable documents were secured to tho I'nii t>d »Slates 
 Government, that he had returned this i)rivate letter to Mr. Hunch. 
 
 In regard to Lord Russell's speech t of May (5, 18(11, it may perhaps be worth men- 
 tioning to the honorable Secretary, that Mr. Seward thought his lordship's (|uotation 
 of Canning's dispatch «)f the l'2th of October, 1825, (toward the close of the speech) — 
 that in which he speaks of its being a coiulition-precedent to any such belligerent 
 recognition, •' that the detention by the searching vessel is f(U" the jtnrposeof bringing 
 the vessels detained before an established court of prize, and that confiscation sliouhl 
 not take |ilace until after condemnation by such competent tribunal"— of importaueo 
 enough to recjuest Mr. Adams to endeavor to obtain the wlude of tht^ dispatch (|uoted; 
 and that Mr. Adams even applied to Lord Russell personally for that puijiose, but un- 
 successfully. — (See MSS. correspondence in Department of State, December, 18(17, to 
 February, 1868.) 
 
 But to proceed with further omissions and niisplacoments: 
 
 The moat important part of Lord liuHselVs dixpaii u to Lord Cowley of May (S, 18(il — that 
 part which gives the key to the whole movement, ami was the launching of the Hiiiuli 
 missiiui — is left out on jiage 3G, (where the rest is given under index caption of ".Vo/j- 
 Jication of lilockade,'' p. 5,) and is only given at page 48 under "Ikclaration of Parin." 
 
 On pagt; 'i7 is given Lord Russell's account of liis interview with the reliel emissa- 
 ries Yancey, Mann, and Host, on May 4, 18(51, (the Saturday before the Monday of May 
 6, when our civil-war fortunes wore to receive that stroke of paralysis which was to 
 benumb them for four long years,) ft«<r»m//s //i<;/«</er ««(//«>■ m')re important amount of 
 the same interview, given by the emissaries themselves, under dale of Anyunt 11, 18(11 ; [a 
 portion of this account is afterward furnished, to be sure, at page '.V.i7t, niuler head of 
 "Port lieyulations," (!)] — a most important document in the history of belligerent rec- 
 ognition, which seems to have escaped Mr. Seward's attention in discussing the sub- 
 ject-matter with Lord Stanley, in January, 18t>7. {Seward to Adams,t January 1'<J, 18(17, 
 U. S. Dip. Cor., 1867, pp. 45-50.) 
 
 Lord BuHselV't important letter to the Commissioners of the Admiralty, of May 1, 18(11 — 
 which, perhaps, amounts to a recognition of rebel efjuality at that early day. but wliich 
 certainly constitutes the only instruction given to British cruisers during the war that 
 tfta< government, so far as I am aware, h.is ever published — is given (page :W) under 
 index caption "Notification of Blockade," (!) when the blockade was as yet unknown. 
 
 Lord Lyons to Lord Russell of April 22, 1861, (showing that Lord Lyons considers 
 that but few British cotton-vessels will be on the American coast when the blockade takes 
 effect, and that uo great alarm need bo apprehended from rebel cruisers,) given page 18 
 of the Compilation — omits the date, " Received May 10,'' (i. e., at tho FonHgn Otlice.) likt; 
 Mr. Seward's official communication of the blockade, o( April 19, (page 2:5,) that of 
 "May 14," commented on in my former communication ; showing that official nolifiva- 
 tion of the American proclamation of blockade did not actually reach the British yovernmvnt, 
 on its own showing, till twenty-four hours or more after the 2)ublication of the Quten^s procla- 
 m.ation of neutrality, 
 
 Mr, Seward^s bold and enei-getic letter to Mr, Adams,^ of May 21, 1861 — written after 
 hearing of the parliamentary declaration of May 6, but before any oliicial commuiiiea- 
 tiou of belligerent recognition, or information as to intention of issuing the proclama- 
 tion of neutrality, and which letter of Mr. Seward's Lord Lyons '• fears the President 
 
 • The correspondence referred to by Mr. Bemis is on lile in the Department of State, 
 and will, if desired, be placed at the disposal of the High Joint Commission. 
 t See Compilation, vol. I, p. 483. 
 t See Compilation, vol. 3, p. 660. 
 $ See Compilation, vol. 1, p. 179. 
 
 :; 
 
 rit 
 
 C" 
 '>i% 
 
328 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 ;"r ifi 
 
 
 • 1 '■ 
 
 lijis consented to iK'infr sent,'' (Lyons to IIiihhvU, May 'i'.\, l^^fil, IJliio Book, If^G'^^, No. 1, yafre 
 nil, , 'in (I i(7i((7/ /((«/, so tar as I can stM!, /« «/w h(j< f/nr;i iic iiu; ('(impilatioii) — is only <;iven 
 iMitirt' (at pa^fe 179) wiulor " Hivocntioii of IkUifn-rvnrii" (\) Tin; »!Xtrai!t on the (sirlier 
 l>ii;;e, (51,) thonmh JnuMy ur.plicuted under " Dccliiralion of J'liriH," contain.s no rellec- 
 tidii or expre-ssion of that " violent oxitlosion of wrath," which Lord Lyons reters to as 
 exliiliited a the American jiress utjnerally, on the reci^ption of the news of the jiroceed- 
 iii;;s in Parliament on the (ith, lint which rellection of American setitiment is justly and 
 iuicildy dei)i(ted in the remainder of Secretary Reward's energetic instruction to Mr. 
 Adams of ilay 21, not exlriieti'd. 
 
 Aii'i Mere, jierliajiH, in rej;ard to index captious in vol. 1, 1 may remark once for all 
 iHMin the imperious nec(\ssity of some explanatory, prefatory, or suppleuHUitary note, 
 sliiiwinfi; why the head cajition " yotifwatioii of JUockadc " is foisted into the index from 
 l>iij;es iii to v, underneath the };eneral title " livcofinition of liihii J!vlli(ierviiri/ ; why the 
 jii'iieral title itself is not resumed ajfaiu on paj^o iv ; how the " Di'clanitioii of I'ltrin-' 
 connects itself with the main suhjec* ; the sauui of the " llevovution of liinicli'ii KriqiKi- 
 tnr','^ what is meant by " Port lii'ijidaliouH,'^ pajjes xxxiii-xxxvii ; aiul Jiow " J'loponi- 
 tiinixfor Maliatio)! oiid Intcrrvutioii '' are distin;;'uishal)le from The current jf.Muu'al title 
 '• Hicotinitioii of Jiclwl JUniyviriKji.'' Nor do 1 understand exactly why, in tlu; text and 
 liiidy ofthe vidniue from jcige .517 to the end, the main tithiof the voluuu* tviul the headin<; 
 of the pajr*!" CIcimxaqniiiHt iiriat liritoin " is dropped, and '^ Knfonoiwiit of XinlraHln^' is 
 made to ofcnpy the headiuf^ of the left-hand p.'ifje, with ^'■Amiudmcnt of Lairs" &c., on 
 the ri^^ht-haiid ^^ide. The C'oni]iilation for most purposes would be far nuire satisfac- 
 tory, I am constrained to think, vithout any divisions at all, atul with a nuue chrono- 
 logical juxtaposition of documentary jiieces, than with such a coufusiuj; and misjiuid- 
 injr series of captions and title>j. In sayii.j^ this I am well aware that sonui of these 
 divisions were of my own sufifj;estiou ; but with the mechanical arraufjenuMit, ov rather 
 Jdiv-arraupemcnt, of i>rintin<;:, and still more in the absence ui an ex])lau'.itory preface, 
 I tind that all such arraut;emeut ami distribution of my own has oidy led to ci)mpli- 
 cated disorder. 
 
 But to hasten on with my imjierfect catalogue of omission? and misiivraugtuneuts 
 under tho head of "Kecognition of Keliel Uellifieremy," to which I have levotetl a 
 more especial attention, ' lin<l one of tlur live or six ilcmiimh fur Ihc rivull of thin r<ro()- 
 iiiliiiii, as made l)y tlur United .States durinjj; the course of the civil war, and tlit^ de- 
 iiiMiid whicii of all otheis was nuist exjilicitly and unwarrantably refused by (ireat 
 Ih'itain, oUniiilh'-r oiiiiltcil from that head. I allude to the d< maud of ^tr. Siicard of Orlo- 
 h,r-l\, lHt!.l,(,s,,,rt;Y/ to Ad'amH,* No. ll:5l), Diji-jDor. 18(14, Pt. H. i»p. 3:!H-:M1, :'.12,) which 
 iciin commiiiiiialfd to the ilrilixh tjoreriiiiuiii hij Mr. Adamx, A'orcHi /><•)• '2:f, 1>'(>4, {.IdamD to 
 <V( »•((»•(/, t No, ^•JI, J)i)>. Cor. IHtio, p, ,'>,) and which wax poiiil-ldaiik rtfiiwd In/ Lord Hiinmll, 
 Sovcmhcr '21'), l^(;4, (I51ue Hook, 1"(m, No. 1, p)>. 'J.''>. 27, I'H, Vi'iz-w // to /,,i/o/(.s,i Novemlier 
 2<i.) 'J'he reln,-al is givdi in tlie ("c ni}iilation, (vol. 1, ]i)>. 27!>, Ac.,) liut neither Mi-, 
 [reward's instruction luir Mr. Adams's communication of the instruction whi;,'h led to 
 the n^fnsal. A portion is of Mr. Seward's letter,!^^ in which the instruction is contained, 
 is indeed given at jtage (u(\ under "Aniciidmnit of lawn,'' but not the extract on jiages 
 41, 42 (of L'euted (States Dip, Cor.,) relating to belligerent recognition, which seems to 
 Ifiive lieen ovi :!' oked by the comiiiler. It is true that both Messrs. Seward's and Ad- 
 ams's entire disjiatches of October 24 and November 21$ art! given in vl. 2, of the 
 Compilation, under ''l>cbc! opcralionx from ('aiiuda" (jip. 20-;5(),) but the two portions of 
 tiie li(lli(/irciit-lUcof/iiitioii correspondence ought not obviously to b(> given thus dislo- 
 cated an«l dissevered. Esjtecially, as it seems to mo, was it desirable to bring our de- 
 mand into juxtaposition with Lord Russell's rotiinterr communication to Slidtll and 
 Mason .>f Xorcmhrr 2;'), 181)4, (the day before,) which Slidell in his intercepted dispatch 
 to the rebel secretary of state, (elsewhere commented on,) justly characterized as a 
 gratnitou3 and extraordinary ott'eiisivo lusult to the Governmeii* of the United 
 States. 
 
 I liiid that I have ondtted to notice in their chronological order two other important 
 dispatclus, or extracts of dispatches, of the year 18112, relating to the same head of 
 Iv'ebel Melligerency, which ought to have been repeated, or els(! dilferently arr:inged, 
 in V(d. 1 of the Comiiilutiou. The lirst is fiiwnrd to Adamx, So. 2t)t), Mai) 28, 1h(W, (^l)ip. 
 Col., U(l,) a disiiatcli in which Mr. Seward invoked tin- element of slavery tor the lirst 
 tune, ;»s a ground for revocatitui of belligi^nMury, and which dispatch both Messrs. Sew- 
 ard and Adams regarded as of the highest, importance ; and the second, .Idiimx to Sew- 
 ard, Xo. 208, Aniinxl 22. l'-'t'>2. (Dip. t^or., 1H(I. IHI.) highly noticeable for Mr. Adams's ?»■■ 
 jioit that tilt! Jiritixh fiorcriiinciit would probably hare rvvallcd Iwlliycrriit rccoyuition in lf()2 
 (/■ MiClcllati^ii adrnnce on Richmond had proved nncceHxfnl. Thene two (lispatchcH are 
 
 * See Compilation, vol. 2, p. 20. 
 tSei; Compilation, vol. 2. p. Uli. 
 t See Compilation, vol, 2. p. ()7. 
 j Given iu lull on p. 20, vol. 2, of Compilutiou. 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 329 
 
 Xo. l,l»aKO 
 iiiily <;ivt'ii 
 tilt! oarlicr 
 s iH) rcllt'c- 
 I'ftcrs to as 
 lie prociMMl- 
 <. justly aiul 
 tiou to Mr. 
 
 once for all 
 iitary note, 
 iii(lt!x from 
 1/ ; wliy tlio 
 I of I'ar'iK '' 
 •/I's EjcqiUi- 
 
 V " J't'O/KIKi- 
 
 i^Micral title 
 Ju! t»'xt and 
 :liu lii-a<lin;j; 
 ■ntralilji''' is 
 IS," &('., on 
 re Hutisfac- 
 ore ilirono- 
 1(1 niisf>ui(l- 
 110 of tlieso 
 it, Oi' rarlier 
 iry preface, 
 to couipli- 
 
 rangeiiients 
 
 L- levoted a 
 
 / thin riro(i- 
 
 111(1 the (le- 
 
 1(1 liy (Jrcat 
 
 (i)(l of Orlo- 
 
 •M-2,) ivhkh 
 
 I, {.Ulumn to 
 
 ord llii^nill, 
 
 t Novcnilier 
 
 iieitlier Mr. 
 
 lii;,li led to 
 
 I contained, 
 
 t on pajjes 
 
 li seems to 
 
 ll's and Ad- 
 
 l.y, of the 
 
 portions of 
 
 thus dislo- 
 
 iii^' our de- 
 
 Slidell and 
 
 id dispatch 
 
 ■rized as a 
 
 the United 
 
 • important 
 lie head (d' 
 air:iiij;t'd, 
 IH(W, (^l)ip. 
 tor the tirst 
 lessis. 8(nv- 
 illlin to .Scic- 
 tVdams's rv- 
 tion ill IHi'i 
 latches are 
 
 
 given at pages 40,'), 4'M, of vol. 1 of the Cojiipilation, under the topic, '*rroponitionH for 
 Midiatiuii,^' &c.; Imt are, perhaps, lost to tin; sul).j(!et of "IliToyniiioii." (See Mr. Sew- 
 ard's* comments on Lord Kiissell's course, Seiitember C,No. 'SM., .Jip. Cor., If^ty, p. ISM^ 
 also omitted from the Compilation ; though another extract from the same dispatch is 
 given, vol. 1, p. 4:{4.) 
 
 IJiit to recur to tli(» latt(^r period of l-'fio ; again I find the imiiortant dispatch o( Sew- 
 ard to Adutiis, Xo. l:{t»4, of March 1.'), (Dij). Cor., 18H."). \>. '.i !.'>,) omitted from both vols. 
 1 "11(1 vJ. This is a dispatch in which Mr. Seward makes the diminution and dt^struc- 
 tion of AiiK'iican commerct! a sjiecilic gi.iuini of national claim against (Jreat Uritain, 
 connected with the onttit in British ))i)rts of rebel cruisers, and whi(di assumes more 
 coiisei|iience by reason of Mr. Keverdy .lohnson's recent unfonmUd admissii>ns in that 
 resjiect. I ought to notice, perhajis, in reference to the compilation, that Mr. Adams's 
 fuliillment of .Mr. Seward's instruction, by way of communicating this dispat'di, is 
 given at jiagt! "JHO of vol. 1 of tlit^ Comiiilation, though somewhat varied in terms and 
 recast as to its connecti(Mi. Another (lis|>ateli (jf .!/»•. Scward'H of Morvh '.iO, Iriti-'i, 
 (t.Scit7(/'(//o ,l(/«m.'<. No. i:{I(ijDip. Cor., p. "i.VJ,) five days later, alsooniitted. ought to have 
 given Mr. Seward's urgent claim (at its conclusion) for the recall of lielligerent recog- 
 nition. Following after this period at a near iut(!rval I lind more omissions under tlio 
 head of '' demand for revocation of rebel belligerency," which it seems to me are ma- 
 terial deticieneies. 
 Dixputrh Xo. V.\r>0, F. If. Seward to ,idamn,of April 12,t (Dili, f '"»"•. 1»- '■^^''^•) 
 JJinpateh Xo. KTU, Jdamn to Hunter, of ./inie '2, ^ (Dip. Cor., p. :{i»li.) 
 JJiximteh Xo. 1)77, Adams to IJniitu , of./mie 2, \\ (Dip. Cor., ji. :5!)7.) 
 Dixjiiiteh, (inniiiinhered eirenlar,) Sewtird in .Idam.-t, June 1 ,*i (Dip. C(ir., p. 400.) 
 S(Mue or all of these are certainly necessary ti» tell the story of the reluctant recall 
 by England of \\^hv\ recognition, and how easily and fairly !h" same measures (of 
 merely withholding 'losjiitality from rebel cruisers, and of ac Drding it as usual to 
 United States ships of war) might have been practiced ujiouby that governmeut from 
 18(>"i downward. 
 
 This bijiiicli of tho ca.so may be appropriately do.sed by printing 
 entire the instriictioiis of Mr. Fish to Mr. Motley, of the 2r>th of Sep- 
 tember, 18<)!>, and the imsisjned " notes'' ujjon that dispatcli, which were 
 handed to Mr. Fiish by Mr. Thornton on the Gth day of Xovend)er, 
 18(>l>. 
 
 Althonfjh an ofhcial ciiaracter to the latter docninent was disavowed 
 by I ord Clarendon, and it, therefore, does not form it part of the oilieial 
 recoid of tli(! (;ase, the fact that it was reimted to have been prepared 
 l)y Jjord Tciiderden (then Mr. Vlibottj will give it an interest in the eyes 
 of the America!! commissioners. 
 
 No. 70.] 
 
 Mr. Fish to Mr. Motley. 
 
 DKrARTMENT (IT S'lATK, 
 
 H'asliingtoit, .Siplcmber 2!^^, 1S(!9. 
 
 Siu: When you left here upon your mission, the moment was thought not to be tho 
 most liopel'ui to enter upiui reiii'Wed discnssicm or negotiation with the gov(U'nmeiit of 
 dreat Uritain on the subject (d' tin; claims of this (ioverninent against that of Her 
 Maj(!sty, and yon were instruct<!d to convey to Lord Clarendon the opinion of the I'resi- 
 deiit that a suspension of the discussion for a short per-od ininht allow the siibsidiMice, 
 of any yxeiteiiuuit or irritation growing out of events iieu rec(!nt, and might enaldu 
 the two j,'0vernments to ivpproach imu'e readily to i' iiliition of tluur dill'ereiiees. 
 
 You have inlormed me that L(ud Clan iidoii ^:^^ no (dijection to this conrw*, and 
 agrei^l with you that it woald be well to give time for eimdions which had been ex- 
 cil'.Ml of late to subsid(>. Th'! President is inclined to belim'e that sudicii^nt time, iimy 
 have uow elapsed to allow Hiibsidenco of tho.so emoti(Mis, and that thus it may be 
 
 * The extract jirinted on piige 4;!4 and the one on pagt^ ol'.? of V(d. 1, Compilat on 
 constitutci Mr. Seward'« instiuction to Mr. Adams of September H, iw(i'.i, with tin* "X- 
 ception of three paiagraplis, which treat entirely of military events transpiring in 
 tho United States at that time. 
 
 tSee Compilation, vol. I, p. '.WG. 
 
 i See I Ompilation, vol, I, p. .'{(!7. 
 
 ^ See ('(Uiipihitioa, vol. 1, p. !J7l.- 
 
 II ."^ee Compilation, vol. 1, p. :$":{. , 
 
 i[ See Cumpilatiuu, vol l,i». 374. 
 
 M 
 
 m 
 
 •''3 
 
330 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 1^ ;■ 
 
 P- 
 
 IP" 
 
 Ik 
 
 fr! 
 
 i : 
 
 1H, 
 
 1 -' 
 
 i!i 'i 
 
 
 ,BF 
 
 I 
 
 5 
 
 n : W 
 
 ■ I? 
 
 I: ■ !■ 
 
 *■,■ ■ '. 
 
 p" 
 
 opportune and convenient at the present conjunctnre to place in yonr hands, for 
 appropriate nse, a dispassionate exposition or the just causes of cuuiplaiut of the 
 Government of the United States against that of Great Britain. 
 
 In order to «lo this in a satisfactory manner, it is necessary to go hack to tlio very 
 beginning of the acts and events which have in their progress and cotisnuuuation so 
 much disturbed the otherwise amicable relations of the two goverinuents. 
 
 Wlien, in the winter of 1860 and 1861, certain States of the Auierican Union undertook 
 by ordinances of secession to separate themselves from the others, and to constitute of 
 their own volition, and by force, a new and independent republic, under tlie name of the 
 Confederates States of America, there existed as between Great Britain and the United 
 States a condition of profound peace; their political relations were professedly and 
 apparently of the most friendly character, and their commercial and Hnanoial relations 
 were as close and intimate in fact as they seemed to be cordial in spirit, sucrii as 
 became the two great, liberal, progressive, and maritime and commercial powers of 
 the world, associated as they were by strong ties of common interest, language, and 
 traditioi . 
 
 The Government of the United States had no reason to presnine that the amicable 
 sentiments of the British government would be diminished, or otherwise i»rejiidicially 
 affected, by the occurrence of domestic insurrection within the United States, any 
 more than those of the latter had been impaired by the occurrence of insurrection in 
 British India, or might be impaired by such occurrence elsewhere in the dominions of 
 Great Britain. Least of all could the Government of the United States anticipate hos- 
 tility toward it, and special friendship for the insurgents of the seceding States, in 
 view of the inducements and objects of that insurrection, which avoweidly, and as 
 every statesman, whether in Europe or America, well knew, and as the very earliest 
 mention of the insurrection in the House of Commons indicated, were the secure es- 
 tablishment of a perpetual and exclusive slave-holding republic. In such a contest the 
 Government of the United States was entitled to expect the earnest good-will, syinpa- 
 thj , and moral support of Great Britain. 
 
 It was with painful astonishment, therefore, that the United States Groveniment re- 
 ceived information of the decision of Her Majesty's government, which had already 
 been made on the 6th day of May, 1861, and was announced on that day, in the House 
 of Commons, by her ministers, and was followed by the issue, on the llUh of May, 1861, 
 of a proclamation, which in effect recognized the insurgents as a belligerent i)ower, 
 and raised them to the same level of neutral right with the United States. 
 
 The President does not deny, on the contrary he maintains, that every sovereign 
 power decides for itself, on its responsibility, the question whether or not it will, at a 
 given time, accord the status of belligerency to the insurgent subjects of another 
 power, as also the larger question of the independence of such subjects, and their ac- 
 cession to the family of sovereign states. 
 
 But the rightfulness of such an act depends on the occasion and the circumstances, 
 and it is an act, like the sovereign act of war, which the morality of the public law 
 and practice requires should be deliberate, seasonable, and just in reference to sur- 
 rounding facks ; national belligerency, indeed, like national independence, being but an 
 existing fact, officially recognized as such ; without which such a declaration is t>nly 
 the indirect manifestation of a particular line of policy. 
 
 The precipitancy of the declaration of the Queen's government, or, as Mr. Bright 
 characterized it, "the remarkable celerity, undue and unfriendly liaste" with which 
 it vras made, appears in its having been determined on the 6th of May, four days prior 
 to the arrival in I ondon of any official knowledge of the President's proclamation, (of 
 April 19, 1861,) by reference to which the Queen's proclamation has since been defended, 
 and that it was actually signed on the 13th of May, the very day of the arrival of Mr. 
 Adams, the new American minister, as if in the particular aim of forestalling and pre- 
 venting explanations on the part of the United States. 
 
 The prematureuess of the measure is further shown by the very tenor of the procla- 
 mation, which sets forth its own reasons, namely, " Whereas hostilities have unhappily 
 commenced between the Government of the United States of America and certain 
 States styling themselves the Confederate States of America." Moreover it is not pre- 
 tended by the proclamation that war exists, but only a " contest," in reforejjce to wiiich 
 it is not unimportant to note that the language used is such as would titly apply to 
 
 {)arties wholly nidependent one of the other, so as tiius to negative, or to suppress, at 
 east, tile critical circumstance, that this bare commencement of hostilities, this incipi- 
 ent contest, was a mere domestic act of insurrection within the United States. 
 
 But that which conclusively shows the unsoasonable precipitancy of t\ui measure is 
 the fact tliat on that day. May 13, 1861, and indeed until long afterward, not a battle 
 liad been fought between the insurgents and the United States, nor a combat even, 
 save the solitary and isolated attack ou Fort Sumter. Did such a bare comiueucement 
 of hostilities constitute belligerency f Plainly not. 
 
 There was at that time no such thing as a population elevate^ into force, and by the 
 prosecution of war, which Mr. Cauuiug points out as tho test of belligerent ouuditiuu. 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 331 
 
 hands, for 
 kiiit of the 
 
 to tho very 
 iiiuatioii so 
 
 I niKlertook 
 institute of 
 laine of thu 
 the iJiiitoil 
 ssedly iiud 
 il rehitioiis 
 it, 8ii(,'l« as 
 powers of 
 ^nago, and 
 
 !io amicable 
 rejiidicially 
 States, any 
 irrection in 
 )niini(.ns of 
 ici|>at« Ijos- 
 <; States, in 
 My, and as 
 ery earliest 
 e secure os- 
 contest the 
 Yill, syuipa- 
 
 ^ninient re- 
 had already 
 i the Honso 
 fMay,lHGl, 
 rent i>ower, 
 
 y sovereign 
 
 it will, at a 
 
 of another 
 
 id their ac- 
 
 ninistances, 
 pnblic law 
 ence to snr- 
 leing bntan 
 itiou is only 
 
 Mr. Bright 
 with which 
 r days prior 
 bmation, (of 
 
 n defended, 
 rival of Mr. 
 ng and pre- 
 
 tho procla- 
 i unhappily 
 and certain 
 t is not pre- 
 ce to which 
 t.ly apply to 
 suppress, at 
 
 this iucipi- 
 tes. 
 
 ) ineasnre is 
 not a battle 
 onibat oven, 
 iiuenoement 
 
 and by the 
 it ouuditiou. 
 
 The assumed belligerency of the insurgents was a fiction, a war on paper only, not in 
 the iield, like a paper blockade; the anticipation of supposed belligerency to come, 
 but which might never have come if not thus anticipated and encouraged by the 
 Queen's government. 
 
 Indeed, as forcibly put by Mr. Adams, the Queen's declaration had the effect of creat- 
 ing posterior belligerency, instead of merely acknowledging an actual fact ; and that 
 belligerency, so far as it was maritime, proceeding from the ports of Great Britain and 
 her dependencies alone, with aid and co-operation of subjects of Great Britain. 
 
 The Government of the United States, that of Great Britain, and other European 
 powers, bad repeatedly had occasion to consider this question in all its bearings. 
 
 It was perceived that the recognition of belligerency on the part of insurgents, 
 although not so serious an act as the recognition of independence, yet might well be 
 prejudicial to the legitimate government, and therefore be regarded by it ns an act of 
 unfriendliness. It was a step, therefore, to bo take, with thoughtfulness, and with 
 due regard to exigent circumstances. Governments had waited months, sometimes 
 years, in the face of actual hostilities, without taking this step. But circumstances 
 might arise to call for it. A ship of the insurgents might appear in the port of the 
 neutral, or a collision might occur at sea, imposing on th^ neutral the necessity to act ; 
 or actual hostilities might have continued to rage in the theater of insu rgent war, 
 combat after combat might have been fought for such a period of time, a mx-ss of men 
 may have engaged iv. actaul war until they should have acquired the consihiency of 
 military power, to repeat the idea of Mr. Canning, so as evidently to constitute the 
 fact of belligerency, and to justify the recognition by the neutral ; or the nearnesK of 
 the seat of hostilities to the neutral may compel the latter to act. In either of these 
 contingencies the neutral would have a right tu act ; it might be his sovereign duty to 
 act, however inconvenient such actioii should be to the legitimate governnuMit. There 
 was no such fact of necessity, no such fact of continued and flagrant existing hostili- 
 ties, to justify the action of Great Britain in the present case. Hence the United 
 States felt constrained at the time to regard this proclamation as the sign of a purpose 
 of unfriendliness to them, and of friendliness to the insurgents, which purpose could 
 not fail to aggravate all the evils of the pending contest, to strengthen the insurgents, 
 and to embarrass the legitimate government. And so it proved, for as time went on, 
 as the insurrection from political came at length to be military, as the sectional con- 
 troversy in the United States proceeded to exhibit itself in the organization of great 
 armies and lleets, and in the prosecntiou of hostilities on a scale of gigantic ningnitude, 
 then it was that the spirit of the Queen's proclamation showed itself in the event ; 
 seeing that in virtue of the proclamation maritime enterprises in the ports of Great 
 Britain, which would otherwise have been piratical, were rendered lawful, and thus 
 Great Britain became, and to the end continued to be, thi> arsenal, the navy-yard, and 
 the treasury of the insurgent confederacy. 
 
 A spectacle was thus presented without precedent or parallel in the liintory of civil- 
 ized nations. Great Britain, although the professt ' 'VhmkI of the United States, yet, in 
 time of avowed international peace, permitted ar irnisers to b(! Httedout and har- 
 
 bored and equipped in her ports, to cruise against t' im rchant-HhipH of the Unittil 
 States and to burn and destroy them, until our mauiiiin coniinirce was swept from 
 the ocean. Our merchant- vessels were destroyed pirati«;allv 1 captors wlio had no 
 portsof their own in which to refit or to condemn prizes, and wiiumc only nationality was 
 the quarter-deck of their ships, built, dispatched to sea, and not s< <1<)ni in nan . still, 
 professedly owned in Groat Gritain. Earl Russell truly said, "It .so hajipens tiiat in 
 this conflict the confederates have no ports, except those of the Mersey and the Clyde, 
 from which they sen 1 out ships to cruise against the Federals." The number of our 
 ships thus directly destroytfd amounts to nearly two hundretl, and the vain.' of prop- 
 erty destroyed to many millions. Iiulirectly the effect was to increase tli' rate of in- 
 surance in the United States, to diminish exports and imports, and otherwise obstruct 
 domestic industry and production, and to take away from the United State s its im- 
 mense foreign commerce, and to transfer this to the merchant-vessels of Great Britain, 
 so that while in the year 1860 the foreign merchant tonnage of the Uniti d ,■- tes 
 amounted to 2,546,237 tons, in 1866 it hail sunk to 1,492,923 tons. This depr.. mtion 
 is represented by a corresponding iucreivse in the tonnage of Great Britaii .luring 
 the same period to the amount of 1,120,650 tons. And tiio amount of mm mo-cf? ab- 
 stracted from the United States and transferred to Great Britain during the same 
 period is in still greater proportion. Thus, in effect, imr againsl the United States 
 was carried on from the ports of Great Britain by British subjects in the name of the 
 confederates. Mr. Cubden, in the House of Commons, characterized by these very 
 words the acts permitted or suflfered by the British government : " You have been car- 
 rying on war from these shores against the United States," he said, " and have been 
 iiifiioting an amount of damage on that country greater than would have been pro- 
 duced by many ordinary wars." 
 
 The gravity of these facts may be appreciated by considering what had happened at 
 other periods. lu the latter period of the war uf the Fi-uuuh revolution, Great Britain 
 
 .H 
 
332 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 ■ \ 
 
 It' i 
 
 
 f 
 
 ml! 
 
 ( 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 ifcli 
 
 f !^ • ' 
 
 i'; 
 
 was comixllcd to straiji every nerve to niaintiiin herself against the power of Napo- 
 leon. Ill siu'li straits, by a sort of war in (lis<;iiise, slie trtispassed on tlie rij^lits of neu- 
 trals, witii siiecial ])reJiMlice to tlic; United tStates, to the n'snlt, at hMijjfli. of solciim 
 war hetwet-ri tlie two nations. Hut neither in the ev<'nts which i)reee(le(l that war, nor 
 in the events of the war itself, did the United State-i snll'er more at tiie hands of Great 
 Britain tlia'n we did dnrin^ tln^ late relxdlion, i>y tne aid, direct or indireet, which she 
 atJ'ordiMl to the confederated insnr<fent States; for while on the ocean <nir merchant 
 marine was de<t;'oyed hy cruisers sent out from Great Britain, an<l our military marine 
 Avas mainly occnjned in watching iuid c(ninter-wt)rkint>' hlockadcvrininers fitted out in 
 Great Britain hy oflicial ajjents of the insurj;<'nt3, on the land it was in likennmner the 
 munitions of w .-ir and the wealth drawn hy the, insur<ifents from Great Britain whicli 
 enahled ti.em to withstand, year aft(!r year, the arms of the Unit(>d States. In the 
 midst of all this, remonstrances of tlu; (!ov(^rinnent of the United States were ])rom|)t, 
 earnest, ami ])ersisf(!nt. Our minister in London u]ii)ealed to the international amity 
 of tht^ British <iovernment; he called on it to disi'har}j;e its oldiKations of lu'Utrality ; 
 lu! invoked tlie aid of the nninicipal laws of (ireat iritain. Ample jtroofs of the wrongs 
 committed weifs snhmitted to the Queen's ^ovennnent. Indeed, these wronjis were 
 open, notorious — perjietrated in thefac(M)f day — the subject of debate and of boast, even, 
 in the House of ('ommons. 
 
 Tiie Queen's ministers excused themselves by allcfjed defects in the nninicipallaw 
 of the country. LeariuMl counsel either atlvised that the wronjjs ccniimitted <lid not 
 constitute violations of tlKMuunicipal law, or else <j;ave sanction to artful device's of 
 deceit, to cover up such violations of law. And, straufjo to say, the (uunts of Enji- 
 land or of Scotland, np to the very highest, were occu]»ied month after month with 
 judicial niceties and te<!hnicalities of statute oustrnction, in this rt>spect, whi'e the 
 Queen's fjovernment itself, inclndinji; tht'. omnipotent Parlianusnt, wlii.ii nii„-':l have 
 settled these (luestions in an hour by aijprojiriate le^i'^lntion, sat with folded Jirm,., .is if 
 nnndmlful of its nitornational (ddif^ations, and suti'ered ship after ship to be constructed 
 in its jiorts to wa^e war on the United States. 
 
 We hold that tins international .luty of tiie Queen's fiovernment iu this respect was 
 above and independent of the municipal laws of England. It was a sovereign duty 
 attachinf;- to (ireat Britain as a sov(^reij;ii power. The niuni"-ipal law was but a means 
 of repr<'ssiny or pnnishinp; individual wrouK-'loers. The law of nations was tln^ true 
 and ju'oper rule of duty for the government. If the municipal laws were defective, 
 that was a domestic inconvenieiu;e, of concern only to the local government, and for it 
 to remedy or not by suitable le<;islation, as it pleas(!d. But no sovereiffu power can 
 rij;htfnlly plead the defects of its own domestic penal statutes as Jnstilication or 
 extenuation of an international AMonjj; to another sovereijjii power. When the dt^feets 
 of the existin<; laws of Parliament iiad become ai)i)arent, the Government of the United 
 States earnestly entreated the (Queen's minister to provide the reiinired remedy, as it 
 would have been easy to do by a proper act of I'ai'liameut ; but this the Queen's yovern- 
 meiit refused. 
 
 The I'uited Spates, at an early day in their history, had si^t the example of repressiufj 
 violations of nei.tr„!ity fo the i>re_jndice of (Jreat Britain by their own authority, ami 
 in the <Hschar<re of their own national duty, without waitiiifj; for the assistance of nni- 
 nicipal statute. Th(\v afterward euacttil such statutes for tlieir own convenience!, and 
 as attestation of their good faith toward other mitions. And on sjjecial occasions, 
 when defects wcmc perceived in such laws, we enacted new ones to meet the eas", not 
 dei'ining that such legislation was derogatory to our ]>ublic dignity ; but, on the con- 
 trary, conceiving that in so doing we best consultitd the highest dictates of mitional 
 dignity, self-respect, and public honor. Ami it Great Britain had so nmhirstood her 
 mitional duty on this occasion, she would li.ive done mncli to save the two countries 
 from the juesent controversy and all its possililc conseciuenet^s. 
 
 Once before, in its intercourse with the UiuumI States, the Queen's government had 
 fallen into the error of assuming that municipal laws loustitute the measure of intisr- 
 national rights and obligations ; that is to say, when olHcial agents of the British go%'- 
 ernment attemitted to enlist military recruits in the neutral countries of Prussiii, the 
 UnitiMl States, ami elsewhere, for service against Itussia, on the hyjtothcsis that, if the 
 j)rohibitionsofnitinieipal law could be evaded, that would sutlico, overlooking the par- 
 umount consideration of the respecit due to the sovereign rights of the m-ntral pow(sr. 
 
 So, on the present occasion, tiu) Queen's ministers seem to have committed the er- 
 ror of assuming that they needed not to look beyond tht^r own local law, enactiMl for 
 their own domestic conveniiMuu', and might, under cov(t of the dilici(Miciesof that law, 
 disregard their sover(<igu duties toward another sovereign ')wer. Nor was it, in our 
 judguuuit. any afhxpiate excuse for the Queen's ministers to [)roft!Ssextr«uue tendeI•Ul^ss 
 of jtrivate lights, or apprehension of actions for damages, in case of any attempt to ar- 
 rest the many ships which, either in England or Scotland, wore with ostentatious pub- 
 licity being constructed to criiis*! against tht) UuitiMl States. 
 
 tturely, that was uu imaginary dilliculty ; or if a real one, it presented the cloctiou 
 
*r of Napo- 
 lit.H ofnt'ii- 
 , of solemn 
 at W!ir, nor 
 Is of (iient 
 wliieli tilie 
 r nu'icliant 
 ary niaiino 
 tied out in 
 nanni'i- tlio 
 tain wliicli 
 I's. In tins 
 •r»i pronijit, 
 ional amity 
 neutrality ; 
 tilt) wronjis 
 ronfis wero 
 boast, even, 
 
 nioipal law 
 ti'<l (lid not 
 devices of 
 ts of Eny- 
 ninth with 
 t, whi'*! tho 
 iii;„-':t havt» 
 I arm.,, .is if 
 constructed 
 
 respect was 
 i'reiH,n duty 
 lut a means 
 ,as the true 
 i^ defective, 
 :, and for it 
 power can 
 iiication or 
 the defects 
 the United 
 medy, as it 
 
 repressing 
 hority, and 
 nco of niu- 
 lionce, and 
 1 occasions, 
 Hi cas", not 
 
 in the coii- 
 of national 
 
 rstood her 
 D countries 
 
 iment had 
 e of inter- 
 h'itish gov- 
 Miissia, tho 
 that, if tho 
 ii;^ the par- 
 i;il power, 
 ted the er- 
 ■iiacttMl for 
 rtliat law, 
 i it, in our 
 teiideriit^HH 
 Hiipt to ar- 
 it ions pub- 
 he clectiou 
 
 ■F-/} 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 333 
 
 hetween a serious eomidication of relations with the I'uited States and the hazard of 
 a lejfal eoiitlict with .John Laird and Ciiarhis Kulin Prioieau. 
 
 Hut till- (i.>V4'riiiiieiitof tiu) United States lias never biM-ii able toseo the force of tliis 
 allej^ed dil'lii'uliy. Tlu' eoinmon law of lv;;jlaiid is thi) coiniiion law of the United 
 States. !n licith cDiitifries, and certainly in Kiij>land, reviMiue seizures are made daily, 
 aii«l slii[)s pre\fnted iVoin f^oiiif; to sea on much less cause of suspicion than attached 
 to the susjtecled sliip« o»' the confederates. 
 
 In both countries, and not least in Kii^^Iand, the ])revioiis order of the ffovernment, 
 or its sul)se(iui'iit approval, covers the acts of the suliordinate otl". ?s. In Itntli coun- 
 tries, orif mit ill l']ii;^Iaiid assuredly in the Unite<l States, under munieipil laws in this 
 behalf substantially the same, the (fi>verniiieut Itnds no dilliculty in airestini; sliips 
 charjfcd with ictiial or intended vitdation of the sovereign rights or neutral tluties of 
 the States. 
 
 Signal examiiles of this occur in the history of the United States. Thus, during the 
 late war between Great Hritaiii and Itiissja, on complaints with aHidavits being tihid 
 by till! Hritisn v-onsul at New Vovk, charging that the liark Maury was lieing eipiipped 
 there as a belligerent cruiser, and this on far less evidence than that which the xViueri- 
 can consul at Mverpool exhibited against the Alabama, tl •; bark Maury was arrested 
 within an hour by ttdegraphic order from Washington. 
 
 Other examples of tlit; same decision and [n'oinptitude, in inaintonanee of the sover- 
 eign rights and disehargt; of the neutral iliUit^s of the United States, have; oceuried, as 
 is well known, under both the last ami present administrations. 
 
 Nay, at t;v<'iy period of our history, tlu^ (Jovernment of the L'^nited States has not 
 been content with preventing the departure of ships fitted out in violation of neutral- 
 ity, and of putting a stop to military I'ecruitiiients and expeilitions of the same nature, 
 but has further manifested its good fairh and its resi>ect for its own sovereignty ami 
 laws Viy pi'os(H!Uting (.'riminal'.y the guilty parties. Examples of thisoccur in the early 
 stages of the war of the French revtdiition, on oc(;asions of the insurrection of tho 
 Sitanish-Aiiieiican continental ]U'ovinees and cd' revolutionary movo'iieiits in the Span- 
 ish-American re|)ublics, and on various other occasions, incliuling the existing insur- 
 rection in Cuba. 
 
 Ibit although such acts of violation of law were freipuMit in Great Ib'itain, and siis- 
 ceittible of complete technical piool". notorious, llauuted dire(!tly in the face of the 
 M"orM, varnished over, if at all, with tlie shallowest pretext of deception, yet no el'i- 
 cien ste)» appears to have been taken by the iiritish government to I'litbice the exe- 
 cuti(m of its nriiniei|>al lawsor to vindicatiMlie majesty of itsontragi-d sovereign powtsr. 
 And till! Government of the United States cannot believe — it would eom^eive itself 
 wanting in respect for Great Ib'itain to impute — that the (Queen's ministers are so much 
 liainpered by judicial difliciilties that the local administration is thus reduced to siudi 
 a state of legal iinpoteney as to deprive the govtunment of cai>acity to uphold its sov- 
 ereignty against local wrong-doers, or its neutrality as regards other sovereign power^f. 
 If, indeed, it were so, thi; causes of reclamation on the part of the United States 
 Avouhl only be the more positive and sure; for the law of nations assumes that each 
 government is ciipalde of discharging its international obligations; and, perchance, if 
 it be not, then the aliscnce of such capability is itself a specific ground of responsi- 
 bility for coiise(|ue!ices. 
 
 Hut the (Queen's government would not be content to admit, nor will the Govern- 
 ment of the United States presuiiK! to iin]iute to it, such [.olitical oigaiiizaf ion of the 
 Ibitish empire as to imply any want "f legal ability on its part to disdiarge, in the 
 amplest manner, all its duties of sovei -i'tnty and amity toward other powers. 
 
 It remains only in this relation to lefe ■ to one other point, namely, the i|iiestion of 
 neijJiiU'Uiv ; neglect on the part of otMc(i> of the Iiritish government, whether superior 
 or suliordinate, to detain confederate cruisers, ami especially the Alabama, the most 
 successful of the depredators on the com nercc of the L'nitiMl States. 
 
 Oil this point the I'residcnt conceiveit that little needs now to be said, for various 
 cogent reasons. 
 
 E'irst, the matter has been exhaustively discussed already by this Department, or by 
 the successive American niinisters. 
 
 Then, if the (|iiestion of iii'gligtMico be discussed with frankness, it must be treated 
 in this instance as a case of extreme negligeiuH', which Sir William .Tones has t.anght 
 us to regard as e(piivalcnt or approxiimite to evil intention. Tim (piestion of negli- 
 gence, thercfere, cannot be presented without danger of thought or language disre- 
 spectful toward the Queen's ministers, and the Presitleiit, while jturposing. of course, 
 us his sense of duty rcipiires, to sustain the rights of the United States in all their ut- 
 most amplitude, yet intends to speak and act in relation to (ireat Mritaiii in the saniu 
 spirit of international respect which he <'xpects of her in relation to the United States, 
 and lie is sincerely desirous that all discussions lietwecn the governments may be so 
 conducted as not oidy to preveii' iiy aggravation of existing dilfereiiees, but to tend 
 
 to such reasonable and am 
 
 icabli 
 
 ■termination as best becomes two gnat nations of 
 
 couimou origin und conscious dignity ami strength. 
 
334 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 i 
 
 ! 
 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 ' 
 
 1 I 
 
 
 'l-i 
 I - 
 
 ii 
 
 n 
 
 1 
 
 
 ' *'4 
 
 I assume, therefore, pretermitting detailed discussion in this respect, that the ne~!i- 
 gonce of the oHit-ers of the British government in the matter of the Alabama, at h'ast, 
 was gross and ii>excusable, and such as indisputably to devolve on that government 
 full responsibility for all the depredations committed by her. Indeed, this conclusion 
 seems in eliect to be conceded in Great Britain. At all events, the United States con- 
 ceive that the proofs of responsible negligence in this matter are so clear that no room 
 remains for debate on that point, and it should be taken for granted in all future uego- 
 tiatioua with Great Britain. 
 
 It is impossible not to compare and contrast the conduct of the States General, as 
 regards Great Britain on occasion of the revolt of the British colonies, with that of 
 Great Britain as regards the insurrection in the Southern States. No fleets were fitted 
 out by America in the ports of the Netherlands to prey on the commerce of Great 
 Britain. Only in a single instance did American cruisers have temporary harborage 
 in the Texel. Year after year the exports of munitions of war for the Netherlands were 
 forbidden by the States General, the more completely to fulfill their duty of amity and 
 neutrality toward Great Britain ; but, nevertheless, Great Britain treated a declaration 
 of neutrality by the T-^'ites General, and the observance of that «leclaration, as a sutfl- 
 cient cause of war aguiust the Netherlands; prior to which the British govoniment 
 continually complained . f the occasional supplies derived by the colonies from the 
 island of St. Eustatius. How light, in this respect, would have been the burdens of 
 the United States during the late insurrection if British aid had been couliued to a 
 contraband commerce between the insurgents and the port of Nassau. 
 
 Not such is the complaint of the United States against Great Britain. We complain 
 that the insurrection in the Sonthern States, if it did not exist, was continued, and 
 obtained its enduring vitality, by means of the resources it drew from Great Britain. 
 We complain that by reason of the imperfect discharge of its neutral duties on the part 
 of the Queen's government, Great Britain became the military, naval, and financial 
 basis of insurgent warfare against the United States. We complain of the destruction 
 of our merchant-marine by British ships manned by British seanie:;, armed with 
 British guns, dispatched from British dock-yards, sheltered and harbored in British 
 pcuts. We complain that, by reason of the policy and the acts of the Queen's minis- 
 ters, injury incalculable was inflicted on the United States. 
 
 Nevertheless, the United States manfully and resolvedly encountered all the great 
 perils and dilliculties of the situation, foreign and domestic, aiul overcame them. We 
 endured, with proud i)atience, the manifestation of hostility there, where we iiad ex- 
 pected friendship, in England, the protagonist of the Jibolition of negro servitude, in 
 order to j)erpetuat() wliicli the Southern States had seceded from the IJnion. We en- 
 tered on a great war, involving sea and land; we marched to the field hundreds of 
 thousands of soldiers and expended thousands of millions of treasure for their supi>ort ; 
 we lavished the blood of our bravest and best in battle, as if it were but water; we 
 submitted to all privations without a murmur; we staked our lives, our fortunes, and 
 our honor on the issue of the combat ; and, by the l)lessing "f (Jod, we came out of the 
 deadly struggle victorious, and with courage proved, strength unimpaired, jjovver aug- 
 mented, and our place fixed among the nations second to none, we nuiy without pre- 
 sumption say, in the civilized world. Providence had smiled on our sacrifices and our 
 ext-rtions ; and in the hour of supreme triumph we felt that, while mindful of good- 
 will shown us by friendly powers in the hour of trial, we could afford to account in 
 moderation with others, which, like Great Britain, had, as we thought, speculated im- 
 providently, and to their own discomfiture, on the expected dismemberment and down- 
 fall of the great American republic. 
 
 As to Great Britain, we had special and peculiar causes of grief. She had proma- 
 tnnsly, as \\v deemed it, and without adeijuate reason, awarded the status of belliger- 
 ency to our insurgents. But this act of itself, and by its inherent nature, was of neu- 
 tral eoloi', and an act which, howsoever we might condemn it in the particular case, we 
 could not deny to be of the conipeten(!y of a sovereign state. Other Euro|)ean govern- 
 ments also )-ecogni/ed the belligerency of the insurgents; but Great Britain ahme had 
 translatiMl a nu^ivsure indefinite of itself into one of (Usfinit*! wrong to the United States ; 
 as evinced by the constant and etlicient aid in ships and munitions of war which she fur- 
 nished the confederates, and in the permission or negligence which enabled confederate 
 cruisers from her pints to prey on tla; commerce of the United States. Great Britain alone 
 had founded on that recognition a systematic maritime war ag.iinsf the Uniteil States. 
 And this, i(i(tt'i<;r the establishment of a slave government; as to which Mr. Bright might 
 well say, " We supply the sl'ips ; we suj)ply the arms, the nuinitions of war ; we give aid 
 and comfort to tlie foulest of crimes; EiijiliHlimni «/(/^doit." Thus, what in France, in 
 Spain, as tlii-irsultseiiuiuitconductshowed, had been but an untimely and ill-judged act of 
 political luaiiifrstation, had in England, as her subsequent conduct showed, been a 
 virtual act of war. We refiecled that the eonfeilerates had no ships, no means of 
 building .sliips, no mechanical appliances.no marine, no legal status on the sea, no open 
 8ea-p(Mts, no |ti pssible courts of prize, no doniest ic comnnind of the instrnments and agen- 
 cies of mtultiii maritime warfare. Wc a&Ued ourselves what would the Queen's govern- 
 
t the ne;;!!- 
 na, !it IciiHt, 
 gov«>nuncnt 
 I concliiMion 
 States con- 
 lat no room 
 fiitiiro uego- 
 
 Guiieral, as 
 witli tlittt of 
 i were fitted 
 :ce of Great 
 y harborafje 
 trlands were 
 if amity and 
 , declaration 
 n, as a snfTi- 
 government 
 58 from the 
 
 I burdens of 
 ouiiued to a 
 
 Ve complain 
 itinued, and 
 eat Britain. 
 > on the part 
 nd (inancial 
 destruction 
 irnied with 
 id in British 
 L'en's minis- 
 
 II the great 
 ) them. Wo 
 
 we iiad ex- 
 lervitnde, in 
 »n. We en- 
 hundreds of 
 eirsnpitort ; 
 ; water; we 
 )rtunes, and 
 e out of the 
 
 l)owor ang- 
 
 ithout pre- 
 [ioes and our 
 hi of good- 
 
 ac(;ount in 
 culated ira- 
 ; aud down- 
 
 liad proma- 
 of belliger- 
 kvas of neu- 
 l:ir case, we 
 iin govern- 
 u alone had 
 itfd States ; 
 lich she fur- 
 coiiftHlerate 
 Iritain alone 
 lited States, 
 rijllit might 
 we give aid 
 I France, in 
 idgt'd act of 
 ved, Vieen a 
 > means of 
 »'ii, no open 
 tsandngeii- 
 en's govern- 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 335 
 
 ment have said if the United States had awarded the rights of belligereney to insur- 
 gents in India, or in Ireland, in the same circumstances, that is, on the occurrence of 
 a single act of rebel hostility, and had bestowed upon them their ouly means of mari- 
 time as well as territorial warfare against Great Britain f 
 
 In truth, while, in the hour of tiieir great triumph, the United States wore i^hank- 
 fully inclined to sentiments of nuxleration, both at home and abroad — for at home no 
 man has i^itfered death for political (causes— were the more inclined to moderation, es))e- 
 cially, as regards Great Britain, in view of the very enormity of the wrongs we had sus- 
 tained, ,',nd the consequent dilHculty of measuring the reparation due, even if sincerely 
 proffered by the Queen's government — we desired no war with England; we shrank 
 from the thought of another lustrum of fratricidal carnage, like that through which 
 we had just passed, with no change iu the conditions of war but the substitution, on 
 one side, of misguided Englislunen in the place of misguided Americans. We p.eferred, 
 if possible, to liud s(uue satisfaction of our great grievances by peaceful means, consist- 
 ent alike with the honor of Great Britain and of the United States. The iulluence of 
 this condition of mind is apparent in all the discussions of the subject by or under the 
 instruction of this Department during preceding administrations of the Government. 
 It resulted in earnest efforts on our part to determine the controversy by arbitration iu 
 the interest of peace and of international good-will, which etfortd, if promptly met by 
 the Queen's ministers iu the spirit iu which they were nuule, wou (1 long since have re- 
 moved the present controversy from the field of diplomacy, aud eftectually harmuuized 
 the relations of the United States with Great Britain. 
 
 But the amicable advances of the United St>:tes to dispose of the question by arbitra- 
 tion were at the start, aud persistently long afterward, met by Lord Kussell, m the 
 name of the Queen's government, with subtleties of reservation and exception, the 
 effect of whicli would have been, instead of closiui^ up the controversy, to leave us iu 
 a condition worse than before, and more perilous to the cause of peace. 
 
 The Government of the United States has never been able to appreciate the force of 
 the reasons alleged in support of such reservations aud exceptions. Wlien one power 
 demands of another the redress of alleged wrongs, i;ud the latter entertains the idea of 
 arbitration as the means of settling the question, it seenu irrational to insist tiiat the 
 arbitration shall be u. (pialitied aud limited one, through apprehensions lest, i»eradveu- 
 ture, tliere niiglit thurf be implicati(Mi that such wrongs had been comniitVed by inten- 
 tion, aiitl that such implication would bt^ injurious to the honor of the wrong-doing 
 government. On these i»icmiscs arbitration nuiy be the means of adjusting iniinat* rial 
 international wrongs, but uot of material ones; that is to say, if the grifvaiiccs be seri- 
 ous, the two nations must of necessity go to war, while ueither desires it, which would 
 be an absurd conclusion. 
 
 Lord Stanley ami Lord Clarendon a])pear to have seen this, and therefore to have 
 regarded tlie particular (luestion with more correct estiinatioii of its incidents than Lord 
 Russell, an<l thereupon to have admitted as theory comprehensive arbitration coiiceru- 
 iug all (|uestion8 between the governments. 
 
 But tlie convention, which iu this view was negotiated by the Earl of Clarendon and 
 Mr. Keverdy .Johnson, did uot prove satisfactory to tlie Senate of the United States. 
 
 It is well known to the government of Great Britain that the President and the Sen- 
 ate of the United States aio distinct powers of the Government, associated in the con- 
 clusion of treaties aud iu the ap]>ointnient of public ofticers, but not diipeiKliMit one on 
 the other, nor of necessity entertaining the same opinion on public (luestioiis. Each 
 acts on appropriate convictions of duty aud of rigli»^ aud, the Sbuato has the same abso- 
 lute power to reject a treaty as the Presidfut has i«i negotiate one. 
 
 Of course it is not necessarily iucumltonton the President to express approval or dla- 
 apjiroval of an act of the Senate. 
 
 But the President deems it due to the Senate, to himself, aud to the sabjuct, to declare 
 that he concurs with the Senate iu disapproving of that conveuticm. His own partic- 
 ular reas<Mis for his conclusion are sulheiently apparent in this dispatch. In addition 
 to these general reasons, ln' thinks the provisioiisof the convention were iuadetiuate to 
 I)ri>vide reparation IVu' the United States in the manner and to the degree to which he 
 considers the United States entitled to redress. Other and 8i)ecial reasons for the same 
 conclusiuus have been explained in a previous dispatch — such, namely, as the time and 
 circumstances of the negotiation, the complex character of the jjroposed arbitration, its 
 chance, agency, and results, aud its failure to determine any principle, or otherwise to 
 fix on a stable fouinlatiou tlie relations of the two governments. 
 
 The President is uot yet prepareil to itroiuuiuce tui the (lUestion of the iiiilemnities 
 ■which he thinks due by Great Britain to individual citizens of the United States, for 
 the destruction of their property by rebel cruisers fitted out in the jiortsof (iieat Britaiu. 
 
 Nor is he now prepared to 8i)eak of tlie leparatinii which he thinks due by the British 
 goTeruuient for the larger account of the vast ttutional injuries it hivs inllicted on the 
 United States. 
 
 Nor »loes he attempt now to measure the relative effect of the various causes «»f injury, 
 as whether by untimely recognition of belligerency, by suffering the fitting out of rebel 
 
 ■^HS 
 
336 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 n-' 
 
 m- . 
 
 'r>\ 
 
 cniistiri, or by tho supply of sliips, arms, and muiiit' ms of war to tlio confoderafes, or 
 otlicrivisc, ill wliiitHocviu- iiiaiiiior. 
 
 Nor (Iocs it fall within tin; scopo of this dispatch to discuss tho important cliaiiLjiis in 
 the riih's (»r piililic law, the dissirahhiiioss of whi(!li has l)con di'inoristralcd hy tlir iiH;i- 
 dcnts of tln^ last fi'w yoars now iindor consideration, and whicli, in vii-w of tlu! iiiari- 
 tinie proinintMicc of (treat Hritain and the IJiiitod -States, it would belit thnni to mature, 
 and propose to the otln-r states of Christendom. 
 
 All thes(i are siil»j(M;ts of future consideration ; which, wlion the time for action shall 
 arrive, the President will consider with sincere and earnest desire that all ditfereiKrcfs 
 between the two nations ma/ be adjusted amicaltly and compatil)ly with the honor of 
 oaeli. and to the promotion of future concord between them; to which end he will 
 sjiare no eti'ort within the range of his supromo duty to the rights and interest of tho 
 United States. 
 
 At the present stage of the controversy, tho solo object of tho President is to state 
 the position and maintain tho attitude of the United States in tho various relations and 
 aspects of this grave controversy with Cireat Britain. It is the object of this i)aper 
 (which you are .it iiiierty to read to Lord Clarendon) to state calmly and dispassion- 
 ately, with a more unreserved freedom than might be used in one atldressed directly to 
 till! Queen's government, what this Government seriously considers the iiijiiriesshe has 
 snrteicd. It is not written in the nature of a claim, for the United States now make 
 no demand against her Majesty's government on account of the injuries they feel that 
 they have siistaiiied. 
 
 Although the United States are anxious for a settlementon a liberal and comprehen- 
 sive basis of all the (juestions which now interftsre with the entirely cordial relations 
 M'hich they desire to exist bet.vcen the two governments, they do not now propose or 
 desire to set any time for this settlement. On the contrary, they prefer to h^ave that 
 question, and also the more important question of tho nutans and miithod of removing 
 the causes of complaint, of restoring the much desired relations of perfect cordiality, 
 and the previMiting of the probability of like questions in the future, to the considera- 
 tion of li(!r Miijesty's government. They will, however, be ready, wlieiiever her Maj- 
 esty's government shall think tho proper time has come for a, renewed negotiation, to 
 entertain any pro|iosition which that government shall think jirojier to present, and to 
 apply to such projiositions their earnest and sincere wishes and endeavors for a solu- 
 tion hmiorable and satisfactory to both countriea. 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 HAMILl'ON FISH. 
 
 [Inclosnre in No. 7.] 
 
 Observations on Mr. Fisli's tlispnteh to Mr. Motley of Scjytember 25, 1869, 
 respecting the Alabama, ifcc, claims. 
 
 I.— Thk Queen's proclamation of neutrality. 
 
 Mr. Fish recapitulates the arguments previously used by Mr. Seward as to the " pre- 
 cipitate recognition " of belligerent rights, which, he says, " appears in its having been 
 determined on the ()th of May, four days (trior to the arrival in London of any olticial 
 knowledge of the President's proclamation of the 19th of April, 18(51." * # * 
 * and "signed on tho i:Uh of May — the very day of the arrival of Mr. Adams, the 
 new American minister, as if in the particular aim of forestalling and preventing ex- 
 planations on the part of the United States." 
 
 The facts are— 
 
 The President's proclamation of blockade was published April 19. Intelligence of 
 its issue wa.s received by telegraph (see tho Times) on the 2d of May. 
 
 It was iiublished in tho Daily News and other papers on the 3d of May. Mr. Seward, 
 in his dispatch to Mr. Adams of the I2th of January, 18G7, says, " it reached London on 
 the ;{d of May." 
 
 A copy was recoived officially from her Majesty's consul at New York ou the 5th; 
 another copy, from Lord Lyons, on tho 10th. 
 
 It was communicated otUcially by Mr. Dallas to Lord Russell on the 11th, with a 
 copy of a circular from Mr. Seward to the United States ministers abroad, dated tho 
 20th of April, calling attention to it, and stating tho probability that attempts would 
 be made to "tit out privateers in the ports of England for the purpose of aggression ou 
 the commerce of the United States." 
 
 The reason of the delay in receiving the copy from Washington was in itself a proof 
 of the existence of civil war, arising, as it did, from the commuuicatiou betweeu 
 
(loratos, or 
 
 (■Ii(inii;o8 in 
 y the iiici- 
 ' tht! iiiiiri- 
 to luaturo, 
 
 ction shall 
 (lirtVrt'iuioH 
 10 hoiutr ot' 
 11(1 ho will 
 (rest <»f tlu) 
 
 is to state 
 latiuns and 
 tliis paper 
 • lispassiou- 
 [ direetly to 
 rit'sslie has 
 now iiiako 
 jy feel that 
 
 LOinpreheii- 
 al relations 
 
 propose or 
 
 leave that 
 if reuiovinf^ 
 
 cordiality, 
 ! considera- 
 er her MaJ- 
 ;otiation, to 
 sent, and to 
 
 for a solii- 
 
 r)N FISH. 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 337 
 
 25, 18(59, 
 
 to the " pre- 
 laviiiir heeu 
 
 any ofticial 
 
 jf * ^ 
 
 Adams, the 
 venting e-x- 
 
 telligeiice of 
 
 Mr. Seward, 
 Londou ou 
 
 m the 5th ; 
 
 llth, with a 
 I, dated the 
 nipts would 
 fgressiou ou 
 
 ;self a proof 
 uu betweuQ 
 
 Washington and Baltimore being cut olV, in consequence of the confederate troojis 
 threattMiing tlm ca|)ital. 
 
 The preinatureiicHs of th(( measure is further shown by the very teu«)r of the i)rocI»- 
 mation: "Whereas hostilities have unhappily commeiiceii between the (Jovernnient ot 
 the United States of Am(!rica and certain States styling tliemselvi's tlu' (.'onfctlerate 
 States of Ameriea." Exception is also taken to the use of tiie word "contest" as dis- 
 tinct from " war." 
 
 It will bo seen, on referring to the report of tlui royal commission for inquiring into 
 the lu'utrality laws, (Appendix,) that the form of words used is taken from previous 
 prochunations : "Whereas hostilities at thistinu? exist," (.lune (I, 1H2;?:) "engaged in 
 a contest," (Septend)er HO, IHsJ"), Turkey and Greece;) " Whereas hostilities have unhap- 
 pily eonuui-nced," (May I'.l, 18")'.), Austria, France, and Italy.) The sanui form was 
 used in the case of Si)aiu ami Chili, (February (i, IHfUi,) and Spain and Pern, (.March V.\, 
 18(1(5.) "Hostilities hav<i unhai)pily commenced," (Austria, Prussia. Italy, (Jerniunv, 
 June U7, 180(1.) 
 
 The order prohibiting pri"es from being brought into Ilritish i)orts, for which the 
 United .States Governnu-nt tlanked the IJritish government, iis being likely to give a 
 death-blow to privateering, ipeaks of "observing the strictest neutrality in the content 
 which appears to be imminent," (June 1, 18f)l.) 
 
 It is remarkable that in tht) case of Turkey and Greece, British subjects were warned 
 to respect " the exercise of belligerent rights." This is omitt(;d in the United States 
 case, the belligerents being spoken of as "the contending ])arties." 
 
 T!ie expression, "States styling themselves the Confederate States of America," was 
 purposely adopted to avoid the recognition of their existence as independent States, 
 uud gave them great offense. 
 
 The French proclamation of the 10th of June has "la lutto cngag(?e outre le (iouv- 
 eriujinent do I'Union et les Etats prt^tendent former une Conf<^d<^ration particuliiro." 
 
 The Spani.sh proclanuition, which the Uniti'd States minister at Madrid (.see Diplo- 
 matic Correspondence laid before Congr(!Ss, 18(51, p. 224) informed the Spanish govern- 
 ment "the Presidtuit had read with the greatest satisfaction," issued on the 17th of 
 .June, 18(11, has "Confederate States of the South," and uses the term "belligerent" 
 three tiuuis over. 
 
 Mr. Fish's dispatch states that the"assunu)d belligerency" was a " fiction," the 
 "anticipation of supposed belligerency to come, but which might never have come if 
 not thus anticipat(!d and encouragt'd by the Queen's government." 
 
 What are the facts ? A large group of States, containing a population of several 
 millions, and comprising a compact giiographical area, enabling them to act readily 
 in concert, had established a dc facto government, with a i»r(!sident, congress, consti- 
 tution, courts of justice, army, and all the machinery of military and civil power. 
 They po.ssessed thti j)orts along upward of '^,000 miles of coast; with the excoiition of 
 Forts Pickens and Monroe, all the Federal jiosts and forts had l)eon evacuated, includ- 
 ing Harper's Ferry, the arsenal of the Potomac Valley. Fort Suniter, the only 
 one which had olfered resistance, had fallen a month previously, April 13. The con- 
 federat(! troops were in occupation of the Shenandoah lines, and threatening Washing- 
 ton. The confederate president had declared war, and called for a levy of 3'2,0()0 
 troops, to which all the seceded States had responded promptly. On the other hand, 
 the Federal President had called for 75,000 volunteers on the l.'ith of April, and for 
 42,000 more ou the 3d of May ; aud as fast as the regiments could be armed they were 
 hurrying to the defense of Washington. The contending armies were, indeed, face to 
 face. 
 
 So much for the hostilities on land. The operations at sea, in which British interests 
 were more directly aflfected, had been carried on with equal vigor. Ou the 17th of 
 April the confederate president issued his proclamation oflering to graut letters of 
 maniue, whicli was followed, two days afterward, by the Federal proclamation of 
 blockade. At the date of the Queen's proclamation of neutrality both these had been 
 carried, or were being carried, into eft'cct. The Federal Government had instituted 
 the blockade of Virginia and North Carolina, which was declared to be eflFectivo on the 
 30tli of April, and were rapidly dispatching all the merchant- vessels which they could 
 procure, and which they were able to convert into ships-of-war, to the blockade of the 
 other ports. The General Parkhill, of Liverpool, was captured by the United States 
 ship Niagara while attempting to run the blockade of Charleston, on the 12th of May ; 
 and the British vessels Hilja and Moimiouth warned off on the same day. Confederate 
 privateers were already at sea. One was captured at the mouth of the Chesapeake 
 River on the 8th of May by the United States ship Harriet Lane. On the l.'>th the 
 Federal bark Ocean Eagle, of Rockhead, Maine, was taken by the confederate priva- 
 teer Calhoun off New Orleans. At the same port Captain Semmes had already received 
 his commission, and was engaged in the outht of the Sumter. 
 
 Could any explanations wliich Mr. Adams might have had to offer alter such a state 
 of things as this ? Can any other name be given to it than that of civil .war ? 
 
 22 H 
 
 f 
 
 ,1 
 
 m 
 
 Yii 
 
 %. ■'« 
 
3;]8 
 
 GENERAL APPEXniX. 
 
 It is Htiitt'd iliiit tlific was no fact of contiimrd ami (la<;raiif " Iinstilities" to justify 
 the ail ion of (ircat Itritaiii in isHuin;; a |)i'o)'laMiati(iii of m-ntiality. 
 
 Mr. Sfwanl writin;; at tin* linii', and previously to tlio (^ni'cn'M proclaniatiini, (May l,) 
 (tliaiaitfiizcd tlir itioccfdinKs of the confcdt'iatrs as " open, lla;frant, di-udiy war," and 
 as •' civil war,'' (('on;4,ifss Papers, IHdl, pa^c ltir>;) and in a coininnnication fo M. dc 
 Tas^ara, tlic Sjianish minister, reftMieil to tiie opeiations of the Federal hloclcade as 
 hellil^erent operations whieli would ho cairied ou witli due respeet to tho rijjiits of 
 n(!UlralN. 
 
 ,ln<lj;e IJctts, Ir the eases i.; the Hiawatha, &c., said : "I consider that tlie outbn-ak 
 in j>articular Status, as also in tho confederated States, was un open and llajj;rant civil 
 war.'' 
 
 It is also judieially decided hy the Suprtniie Court of tlie United States, in the cas(; 
 of the Amy Warwick and other prizes, tliat "the proclamation of MocJtadt! is itself otli- 
 cial and conclnsiv(! evidence tliat a state of war existed whicli demanded and author- 
 ized such a measure." Moreover, tlie joint resolution of Conj^ress, in July, IHdl, ai)- 
 provin;; and contirmin;;; the acts of the I'ri'sident, (Noith America, No. 1, IHIi'i," pa<;e 
 f)?,) eonunenees : " Whereas, since tin^ adjournment of Coufjress on the 4th of March 
 last, a formidahh^ insurrection in certain States of this Union has arrayed itself in 
 arnu'd hostility ;" and a resolution of the House of He|»i"sentativcs of the '22<\ of July, 
 I'^lil, speaks of tile " present deplorable civil war" an<'. of "tliis war." 
 
 The date at which the civil war actively commen.;ed has, therefore, been lixed by 
 the ])ublishcd dis))atc!u's of the Secretary of State, l»y procei-dinj^s in Conj^ress, by the 
 ftuuial jud};ment of tin- United States prize-cmuts, as well as by tlie universal assent 
 of all tlie neutral jtowers concemed ; but it is urj^ed that, nevertheless, then! was no 
 net essity for (heat Urifain to tak(! notic(^ of it, as no sliip of the iiisnrj^ents had .tp- 
 jieared in Ibitisl jiorts, no cidlision occurred iit sea, nor did thi^ nearness of (Jreat 
 Britiiin to the seat of hostilities comjiel her to act. 
 
 With rejjard to the latter point, it isdiHicult to see how one nation can be much 
 nearer to another than En;;land to the l.'nited States, seeing that the British dominions 
 touch the I'nited States on two sides, while the British islands of New I'rovideiice, iSce., 
 lie immediately in front. As to a collision at sea, it was apparent that British ('omnierce 
 must be interfered with tlui moment the blockade came into oiK-ration, as indeed was 
 the case, several British vessels having been captured before there was time for the 
 intelligence of tlii' proclamaticm of neutrality to reach America. As to the arrival ot 
 confederate ships in Britisli jiorts, such ships were ailoat and mi;;ht at any time be ex- 
 jicctcd. As Mr. Dana, in tiu? notes to the ei;i;hth edition of Wlieaton. expresses it, (p. 
 :?.'>,) " it is not lit that cases should be left to lie decided as they may arise, by private 
 citizens, or naval or judicial ottictus, at home or abroad, by sea or laud." 
 
 Tlie British {fovernment were comiielled to take action of some sort. W'ms that !»(;tiou 
 really unfriendly ; was it intended to be unfriendly ? 
 
 No one who recollects what actually jiassed, or will ccuisnlt "Hansard," can supposn 
 that the iiroclamation was intended to be unfriendly. On the contrary, as was stated 
 by Mr. Forster in his speech at Bradfonl, it was absolutely pressed upon the {joverii- 
 iiu'iit liy the friends of the Northern States, who wiae afraicl lest coufederuto privateerii 
 should be lifted out in British ports. 
 
 Nor was its immediate result injurious to the Federal States. Far fnmi beinfj so, it 
 lejiitimatized the captures of the blockading; squadron, and, in tho languajje of iho 
 prize-c(nirt,"estopi)ed" the British merchants, wIio.^m vessels were seized, from makiiijf 
 reclamation. 
 
 While the intellijfcnce of the issue of the Queen's jirocl.imatian was still fresli, and 
 almost immediately after heariiij;- of the French and Spanish jiroclamations of neutral- 
 ity, the President, in his messajje of the 4th of July, Iritil, stated that ho was *' happy 
 to .say that the sovereij^nty and riijhts of the United States are now practically re- 
 spected liy foreiirii jiowers, and a general sympathy with the country is manifested 
 tlii(Mii;hout the world." 
 
 Does any one really believe that the Queen's proclamation in the very least intluenced 
 the movements of the confederate armies? All tim preparations for war had been 
 made loiijj bef(ue, munitions collected, troojis levied, and {generals appointed. The 
 Iiroclamation reached America at the end of May, by which time the confederates had 
 taken uj» their position on the Upper Potomac, and the Federals had occupied Alexan- 
 dria, in Virt^inia, with a forci; of tliirteeu tiiousaml men. May '24. 
 
 The armies on both sides were in motion ; skirmishes were daily ocourriufj;; engajje- 
 ments took place at Little Bethel ou the It>th of June, at Uartlia^je, Missouri, on the 
 f)th of July, and at Centreville on tho IHth, followed by the great battle of Manassas 
 Junction on the tilst. Can any (uio .suppose that if the proclamation had not been 
 issued that battle would not have been fought? 
 
 TIit> charge of premature recognition, ou examination, reiluces itself to this, that 
 the proclamation ought not to have been issued until Mr. Adams arrived, or until 8oni(> 
 event called for it. Against this is to be set tho fact that the proclamation was con- 
 sidered by some friends of the Northern States as a step taken in their interests, and 
 
ins" to juMtif'y 
 
 iitioii, (May I,) 
 idly war," mid 
 iitioi) to M. d(« 
 il bloclciido as 
 
 tllO lif^lltH of 
 
 t tli« oiitbi(!iik 
 I tla;;riuit civiJ 
 
 OH, ill tlio c!iH(; 
 lit! iH itwlf olli- 
 d and aiithor- 
 Julv, IHil, ap- 
 1, IH()2," paj,"* 
 I 4tli of March 
 aycd it.s«df in 
 
 10 'i'id of July, 
 
 Ix't'ii (ixod by 
 )ii;;i'('ss, liy tlio 
 livc.i'Hal assent 
 , tlitoe wa.s no 
 igciits liad ajt- 
 rncss of (ircat 
 
 I can ha iiiimli 
 tish dominions 
 rovidoiuH", &.C., 
 itisli (!oininerct' 
 as indt't'd was 
 IS time for tlu; 
 thii arrival of 
 iiy tiling 111) cx- 
 ciircssi's it, (p. 
 isL', by privatf 
 
 'as that iM'tiou 
 
 can snpposo 
 as was stated 
 
 11 the <j;overn- 
 ate privatcern^ 
 
 mi beinjj so, it 
 •>;iiaf(o of the 
 , from makiii<; 
 
 till fresh, and 
 msof iieiitral- 
 u was " happy 
 Iiractically re- 
 is manifested 
 
 ast intluenced 
 ivar had been 
 pointed. The 
 ifederat<!S had 
 npied Alexan- 
 
 riiiK; cnsa^e- 
 issoiiri, on the 
 of Manassas 
 bail not been 
 
 f to this, that 
 or until some 
 tioii was con- 
 interests, and 
 
 OF.NERAL APPKNIXX. 
 
 330 
 
 (hat il was Imther pressed upon the jjovernment by Mr. Dallas's eoniinnnication of 
 Mr. Seward's eiicular. .>f<irei)ver, eonfi'derate pris-ateers were at sea. and Hritish ves- 
 Ntds belli;; niatle prizes by tilt Federal liloeUadin^ lleet. 
 
 Besides the assertion of the premature recognition ofljellincreiit ri;;hts, the dispatcdi 
 states that maiit iiiie enterprises in the ports of (iri-at Hritain wliieh would otherwise 
 havi" been piratical were, "by viitne of the proclamation," rendereil lawful, "anil thus 
 (ireat Miitain became, and to tiie end eontinneil to be, the arsenal, the navy-yard, and 
 the treasury cd' the insiir;;i!nt confederacy." 
 
 Mr. I'lsh, in a pl•e(•(^dill^ passable, admits that national belli;;erency is "an existing 
 fact," and he ini;f|it l.ave added that it exists iii(le|ien(lently of any ollh'ial proclama- 
 tiotis of neutral powers, as is shown by the records of tin; Anieiiis'in pii/.e-comts, wlii('li 
 continually reco^ni/e the b(01i^ereiicy of the South American States; althouH;li, as .Mr. 
 Sew,nr<l stated in one of his dispatches, the I'nited States liave never issiieil a proc- 
 lamation of neutrality except in the case of France and l'}u^land, in l7iK!. This was 
 proved in the civil war liy the reception at (Juiavoa of the coiifediMiite vessel Sumter 
 as a lielli^fereiit cruiser, though t'l^ Netherlands had issued no proclamation of iieutial- 
 ity. It was this ieco;rnitioii of the Sumter, after her depart ore from New Orleans, 
 (■Inly (!, I'^til,) at (,'iira\;oa .iiid at Cieiifiie^os, which liist practically accoiileil mari- 
 time liclli;;erent rights to the cimfederates, a fact which is oveilookiMl when it is 
 alleged that <ciiifederate " liellii^crency, so far as it was iiiarit ime," proceeded '-from 
 the ports of (iicat Ihitain and her dependencies alone." 
 
 Indeed, it is not f^oin^ too far to say that the ciuifederalcs derived no direct iienelit 
 from the iu-oclamati<ui. Their belligerency depended upon the fact (a fact whi(^h, when 
 we are t(dil that the civil war left liehiud it tw<i millions and a half id' dead and 
 maimed, is nnfoi-tunately indisputable) that tliey were wa^in;; civil war. If there had 
 been no pioclaiinition, the fact would have remained the same, and belligerency would 
 have had to lie recognized either on behalf of the Northern Slates l»y admiltin;; the 
 validity of captures on the iii^h seas for the carriage of contraband or iireach of block- 
 ade, or on the arrival of the Sumter, or somi; similar vessel, in a Mritisli [tort. 
 
 In no ease can it be really supposed tli:it liie ieco;;uition of belliy-eicncy, which, 
 unless neutral nations aliandoued their neutrality and toidv an active part in the eon- 
 test, was iuevitablo, materially iiillueiicod tho fortunes of such a fearful and protractor 
 civil war. 
 
 At all events, if it did, the confederates never aekiiowledKed it; the recognition ol 
 belli;;'ereiicy they regarded (as indeed was the case) as a liylit wliii;h could not lie de- 
 nied to them. What they sought was not the mere technical title ot " bflli^ereiils," 
 but a reco^fiiition of indepi'iideiice ; and when they found that it was hopeless to expect 
 England to accord it, they cut olf all intercourse with this coiiiilry, expelled her Maj- 
 esty's consuls from their towns, and did everythin;; in their powiu' to show the sense 
 which they entertained of the injury which they believed had been iiitlicted upon them. 
 The result liein,i; that, while one side has blamed us for doin^ too much, the other side 
 has blamed us for doin^ to.i little; and thus an assnin|ition of neutrality has been 
 ro<j;arded both l>y North and South as an attitude of hostility. 
 
 As to the t/ieen's proclamation, rendering; lawful the dispatch of the Alabama, 
 Shemindoah, and Georgia, from Hritish ports, to which il is to be presnined the ex- 
 pression " maritime enti^rprise" refers, it is to be remarked that it is exactly a;;ainst 
 such enterprises that the proclamation reeitin;; the terms of the foreign (Milistmeiit act 
 was intended to warn IJritish .subjects. Instead of rendering: them lawful, it rendered 
 them additionally unlawful, by ^iviii;.!,' notice of their illegality. 
 
 There would be no dilliciilty in showing by [irecedeiits from American prize-courts 
 that no proclamation of neutrality is reiinired to confer belligerent rights on vessels 
 commissioned liy a dc facto government. 
 
 It is admitted that at the time these "enterprises" were undertaken " hostilities" in 
 America were being prosecuted "on a scahi of gigantic magnitude.'' After, therefore, 
 till! Alabama escaped on the 'J'.tth of .July, l8li'J, she became, tiy virtue of her confeder- 
 ate coinniission, uudoubtedly a belligerent cruiser, irrespective of any acknowledgment 
 of belligerency by Great Britain, and was received accordingly by the French author- 
 ities at Martinique, wln-re she lirst touched after leaving Liverpool. 
 
 A pirate is lioxtin humaiii (jviicr'x, one owing obedience to no authority. If the Ala- 
 bama had lieeii really a pirate ileiiredating on American commerce, it would have been 
 the duty of the French to seize her and execute justice on her commander and crew, a 
 pirate being trialile whore.soover found. 
 
 .Judge Nelson, in the case of the confederate jirivateer Savannah, ruled that though 
 confederate privateers were pirates iiikiikI American jurisdiction, they were not idratys 
 jure ticiiliiim ; and, in the case of the Golden Kockst, in which the owner brought an 
 action in an American court against an in.snrance eonipany for the capture of his shiji 
 by the Florida, he being insured against jdracy, but not against war risk, it was de- 
 cided that ea[>turi!S by confederate cruisers were not "piracy"' within the usual iiieaii- 
 ing of the word, and that the company was not liable. 
 
 The American court.s having thus corclusively dealt with tho mutter, it is iiiiiiecea- 
 
340 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 
 
 ri. 
 
 ' r. 
 
 m * I 
 
 Hiiry to jiiusiio Mh^ Hiiltjt'ot t'lirtli*!!-. What in prolmMy iiifaiit in tlitit, if the ronfwltir- 
 nU'.H liati not i»i)s.sfH.s(«(l a ilc/inio p>vi!riiiii(Mit, aixl had not hcon l»clli>;i'rfiits in the hchmc 
 of wa^iny; pnlilic, war, vohmcIs mikUt tlicir commission wouhl Iiavf Immm niiTi' rovinu 
 advontniciM, )nirHninj^ nmn liantincn for tho saktfof privalo plnndcr; in short, inratt's; 
 hnt l>y thi) admission tlnit " liostiiitifs" (tlin very word to wliich execution is taken in 
 thi) neutrality proehvniation) were hein;; proneeilted on a jjreat ncule, th») only Kioixnl 
 on which snch a Hnpposition could rest Ih cut away. 
 
 II.— Till'; insi'ATcii of conkkdkii.vtk (;iii.'i><ku,h viiom uiiiTtsit iuhith. 
 
 Any one who reail the dispatc;!!, without any previous knowledjje of the subject, 
 inijjht suppose, from the lan^uaKc used, that ticcts of privatet-rs had hecn dispatcht.-d 
 from IJritish ports witli tin; connivance, if not with the direct supp()r% of her Majesty's 
 govcrninent. 
 
 "(treat IJritain • » » jA/'miZ/cv/ armed cruisers to he tittcd out," &c. 
 
 " The (Queen's government » * » Hitffirvil ship after ship to bo constructed iii its 
 ports to wa>;e war in the United Statiss." 
 
 "Many ships » • * were, with ostentatious publicity, ]»einf; construtded." 
 
 " I'rrmixHioii or neglij;enco which enabled c(»nliMlerate cruisers from her ports to proy," 
 &c. 
 
 "Great Kritain ulone had founded on tli.at recognition ii Hystfuuitic inuritinic war," 
 » » » "a virtual act of war." 
 
 " Sutferinji; the fitting out of rebel cruisers." 
 
 The fact being that oiifji one vvhsvI, of whose ))robable belligerent character the British 
 government luul any eviileuce, escaped, viz, the Alabaimi. 
 
 The Siieiuiiidoah was a inercliaii -ship, employed in the India trade, uudtn- the name 
 of Sea King. Her conversion into a coufederat*^ cruiser was not heard of until more 
 than a mmith after she had left England. 
 
 The Ot;orgia or .Japan was actually reported by tlio board of tradt! surveyor, wli(» 
 had no idea of licr destination, to be imilt as a merchant-ship, anil to lie rather crank. 
 Nothing was known of her proceedings until she had taken her arms and crew on 
 board in Morlaix 15ay and reached Cherbiuirg. Her real point of departure, as ii cruiser, 
 waH France ami not England. 
 
 The Florida was detaimul at Nassau on suspicion, but discharged by tlm local admiralty 
 court, there being no evidence of her being anything but a blockade-runner. She was 
 fitted out as a shijt of war jit Mobile. 
 
 On the otlier hand, the British governuieut prevented the outfit of the Iiapi>ahan- 
 nock, prosecuttid and detained the Alexaiulria, seized the Liverpool rams, and stoppcul 
 the Pampero, besides investigating carefully every case of suspected outlit brought 
 forward by Mr. Adams, and he complainiul of iiinetccu, as well as every case which 
 could be discovered independently. Among other things, taking charge of Captain 
 Osborne's Auglo-Chineso llotillia, which it was ajiprehended might fall into the hands 
 of the confederates, at a cost to this country of JL'100,000. 
 
 That any sea-going steamer can be converted into a cruiser by strengthening her 
 bulk-heads and arming her, which can bo doiu' at sea as well as on shore, is proved by 
 th« fact that the most efUcieut blockading vessels in the Federal Navy were converted 
 blockado-ruiiners. 
 
 The Alithama, — Mr. Fish speaks of the neglect of the officers of the British govern- 
 ment to detain confederate cruisers, and esi)(!cially the Alabama. 
 
 There was no neglect to detain the Sheinnuloah or Georgia, for the reason that 
 neither the government nor its officers knew they were being intended for the confed- 
 erate service. Indeed, it has novor been proved that the persons who scdd those ves- 
 sels knew it. ProbaVdy they did, but a case might very rejidily arisu in which the 
 vendors might be really ignorant. The American government could not have expected 
 the English revenue officers to prevent every large steamer leaving England in ballast. 
 
 With regard to the Alabama, it is assumed " that the negligence of the officers of 
 the British government was gross and inexcusable, and snch as to indisputably to 
 devolve on that {government full responsibility for all the depredations committed by 
 hor. Indeed, this conclusion seems in effect to bo conceded in Great Britain. At all 
 events, the United States conceive that the proofs of responsible negligence in this 
 matter are so clear that no room remains for debate on that point ; and it ahould he 
 taken for granted in all future nefjotiations with Great Britain." 
 
 By a peiitio principii, the whole argument is thus assumed to be in favor of the United 
 States. 
 
 There is no doubt that the Alabama might, if she had not escaped at the moment 
 when the case against her appeared to be legally established, have been seized and 
 tried under the foreign enlistment act, though the result, looking to what occurred in 
 the case of the Alexandra, might have been doubtful. 
 
 This, however, is a very different thing from admitting that her sale to the confeder- 
 ates was a violation of British neutrality for which the nation is responsible. This 
 
(• «<in(\Mlt(r- 
 
 II till' HI'IIMC 
 
 I ri> roviiiu; 
 II, |>imtt'H; 
 is tJiUcii ill 
 rily Krtxiiiil 
 
 UTH. 
 
 lit! Hiibjcct, 
 tlis|iatchi!(l 
 
 >!■ MllJL'Hly'H 
 
 ncti'il ill its 
 
 ::tc(l." 
 
 •t,s to proy," 
 
 itiiiio war," 
 
 •tlio British 
 
 iv tht^ uamo 
 [■ until more 
 
 rvcyor, wlio 
 itlu'V craiiU. 
 iiid cri'W oil 
 as 11 cruiser, 
 
 al ailniiralty 
 r. Sho was 
 
 Iviippahan- 
 iiid stopptul 
 lit brouf^lit 
 cast> which 
 of Captain 
 the hantls 
 
 thoniu}; her 
 proved by 
 V. converted 
 
 tish govorn- 
 
 reason that 
 
 the coufed- 
 [\ those ves- 
 which the 
 ivc expected 
 jd in ballast. 
 u', olHcers of 
 
 isputably to 
 miniitted by 
 
 ain. At all 
 Mice in this 
 
 it nhould he 
 
 )f the United 
 
 the nioraeut 
 
 seized and 
 
 occurred in 
 
 he confeder- 
 isible. This 
 
 OKNKKAL Al'PKN'DIX. 
 
 341 
 
 
 wan the first iiiHtaiicc which oceiirrrd of tin- sale of a ship under such circuiiiHtan.i's, 
 and the Itritisli ;;ovi-riiiiii-!it liaii, in fact, no siis|)irion of what was f^oin^ to be done 
 in the matter, no inforinalion haviii;; been received of an intention to tai<e out inu- 
 ariiis and «Tew in a separate vesnei. 
 
 .Fiid^je Story, in tlie well-known ease " Sautissiina Trinidinl and HantandiT," laid it 
 down as indispiilitltle that " there is notliiii;; in our laws, or in the law of n.itions, that 
 forbids our eiti/.eiiH iVoie seiidinv; ariin'd vessels, as well as niiiiiitioiis of war. to l\irei;xn 
 ports for sale. It is a eoininereial venture wliicli no nation is Imund to pioliibit, and 
 which inily exposes the iiersons enj^ayi-ij in it to the penally of cDiiliscation." 
 
 But it must be remeinlii-rt'd that when Mr. Kisli claims eoiiipensation for till her de- 
 predations, he should not ovfilook the fact of the iieiiliy;eneesliown Ity the Kedcral Navy 
 in twice letlin;f her escape from then. l'"irst, when .Mr. Adams nr;;ed the captain of tiie 
 Federal ship, which at his instance had ;roi\e to Holyhead to lool' afhr her, tn pursue 
 her, when liii' captain refused and went nil' li> his station al tiibraltai' instciol — a pro- 
 eeediii;j at which Mr. Adams expressed the ;j:n'atesl in(ii;iii.'i( ion ; (see ('iin;;ress l'a|iers. 
 IHIJ'J, p. l.'i'.l M and secondly, when the rnid d .Stales ship " San .Facinio " bhtekaded her 
 in the French jnul <d St. I'ierre, Marlinip.e, and then sutl'ereil her to slip away al ni;;hl 
 fruin iinder her bows. 
 
 III. — Sirri.ii.s 1 rijMsin.i) ro tiik (■r>Mi:i>i:itAri',s nv uimtism siii.ir,trs. 
 
 Mr. Fish states that theeonfedeiates had no ships, no nieehanieal appliances, mt open 
 sea-p(U'ts, A;e,, and implies that the maritime tbrce of the c(mfedeiates was entirely 
 derivtMl from Mn;;;land. 
 
 TheSmiiler, .Nashville, and Florida, however, all sailed from confederate pnit-s in which 
 they were armed and fitted out, besides a vai'iety of small coastin;; privateeis, such as the 
 Tallahassee, whose eaptnres form a eonsideral)l(< item in tiic list of I'^edeial maritime 
 lo.sses lately inesented to Conj;rcss. 
 
 ''On the land it was in like manner the munitions of war and the wealth drawn by 
 the insur;;euts from (inat Britain which enabled them to withstand, year after year, 
 the arms of the I'niled .States." 
 
 If, as Mr. Fish states, the confederates Iiad no open s<'a-porls, how did these muni- 
 tions and ai'iiis reach them 7 
 
 Either the blockadi- was iiiellicicnt, in which case it was ille;;al, and neutral nations 
 were not bound to respect it, or it w.is elllcient, ;is it was ieciii;iiized by (Jrcal lirilain 
 to be, and the siipidy of arms, Ac, was lia/artlons and uncertain. 
 
 There is nodoctriiie nioie clearly settled than that neutral nations !U'e not responsible 
 for the supplies of contraband sent tliroii;;'!) a lilockade by their siilijects. Jiideed, the 
 very existence of a blockade implies this, for, if it were the duty of lu'iitiiils lo pre- 
 vent the shipment <>{' supplies to l)clli;;-ei-elit,s, why should there be. a blockade al all ! 
 Each side would (daiui compensation for the assistance rendered to the other, ami neu- 
 trality would become iini)ossible. 
 
 If once it be conceded that bldekaile-runninjj; is an olfeiise a;;ainst neutrality in a 
 civil war, the precedent Wi)uld not fail to be invoked in all wars by i|rhiche\'er bellij^er- 
 ent considered himself most a;if;iieved. Instead o]' establishing^ a priniii)le in the 
 interests of future peace, this would lead to endless comiKJicaliinis and claims and 
 counter-claims, which would make the end of one war the sure be;iinninj; of aiiolher. 
 
 The (|uestion of the action ol' the Dutch in the war of indi-peudeiuM; cannot be dealt 
 with without a review of the history of llie period, for which this inenjiu'auduui does 
 not ailbrd space. An account of the procee(lin;;s al Saint Enslache, and siibs.(|ni'nt 
 discussions with the Dutch ^iovernme it, will be found in De Marten's " N'ouvelles 
 Causes ("elebres dn Dmit des (Jens." 
 
 As to the sn]»plies sent tlironj;h the blo(;kade liavin;^ been oijrauized by cinifederatc 
 agents in Eneland, the example was set them Ijy the bureau estalilisln.'d liy Franklin at 
 Paris for the; assistance of the American provinces. 
 
 Oil the other hand, it is notorious that the Federal troops were jdentifiilly provided 
 with arms and mnnitious from this country. 
 
 Her Majesty's government have yet to learn that it lias been held in international 
 discussions that iiulividiials are precluded from supplying belligerents with munitions 
 of war. 
 
 IV. — iNDIItKCT IX.nitY TO AMiatlC.VN COMMKItCK. 
 
 "Indirectly the effect was to increase the rate of insurance in the I'nited f^tates, to 
 diminish exports and imports, ami otherwise obstruct <lomestic industry and piodne- 
 tioii, and to taki' away from tlie United States its immense foreign commerce and t<i 
 transfer this to the inerehant-ve.s.sels of (Jieat Britain." 
 
 Mr. Fish proceeds to (jiioto ligures, showing the decrease iu American tonnage be- 
 tween IHIJO aud 1W)G, 
 
342 
 
 GICNKKAL APPEMJIX. 
 
 I'r 
 
 4' 
 
 i I 
 
 r1 
 
 Tliis allc^fitinii (if Tiatitiiijil, iinliii'ft or const rmtivf, claiiiis xvas fii.sf Iir<iii;i;lit f(»r- 
 ^vjtr«l otliriiillv l>.v Mr. IJcvfi'dy .Joliiisoii in his atti'iiqit to r -lu vv iic<;i)tiatioiis on the 
 tlahii.t f<>iiv«'iilioii in March last, (\orth AnnMicu, \o. 1, !•<(>'>, paj^t- •«<>.) 
 
 Mr. 1'hniiiton has siiown the diniciilly thi-i'<- would Im- in (onipiitinjr tiic amount of 
 I'laini ivrn if it wcrf acknowh'djfcd, (N'oith AnnTica, No. ), !•"'»)■.>, iia;;t; .'>;?,) in a dispati'li 
 in which lie nn-ntioiiH tlic continnal dct rcasc of American tonnau;c. 
 
 This is partly, no (h»iil)t, to Ih^ ascrilicd to tlic distnrli;>n(:<- oi' cominci'cial relations 
 C(insc(|ncnt on a lonj^ waf, partly to the fact that many vessels were non>inally lians- 
 ftMied io jiritish owners <liirin;; the war tn escape cajttnre. Sir E. Ilornliy, in a iccent 
 r' port, stales that this was a constant pne-tice in Cliina. 
 
 Is not, however, ii ;.;ood deal of it to he attrihnred to the l!iy;h Ai/ierican tarilV. which 
 makes the construction of vess^ds in American ports more e\|ieiisive than shi]i-!intldin)r 
 in Kn<;land, and has thereby thrown so larj^t; a proportion of tlio carryiuf^ trade into 
 Kiij^UhIi hands i 
 
 There ninsL he some snch tvause f«>r it, or ofhcrwi.so American shippiii;; -.vouhl huvo 
 rcco\ered its jiosition since the war, inst"ad of eontinnin;^ ti> fall ofi'. 
 
 "Neithei' in the events which preceded that war," (of l^l'.'.) nor in the events of 
 the war itself, did thi" Tnited States suffer more," Ac. 
 
 No one can ii..w wish to recall to recollcctitm the particular i^voiisof thai wai'; it 
 wonlil he much better for the two nations to con^riitulate themselviH that one of tin^ 
 (iiincipal causes of it, the ni tionalily dispute, has, it is to he hoi>ed, tieen set at n-st 
 iiually by Lord Stanley's ]>roi,ieol. 
 
 v. I'he disp -h, in conclusion, refers "to important ehanjjies in the rules of juiblit- 
 law,'' the 4h ^li.inlcnessof wiiich has Iteen dvnionstraird, luit docs not say what art; thi* 
 chanjics to whicli it alludes. 
 
 This IS in the sjiirit of the )iroposal made by Ib'r .Majesty's jjovernnient in Deeeniher, 
 iHlio, (Nortli Ann-rica. No. 1, l^'tifi, paj^e 1(>1:)' 
 
 " I, h'.wevi'r, asked Mr. Adams whether if wonhl not be both useful itiid pnictical to 
 let byyones be byyiines, to foiiret the past, and t urn the lessons of experience to account 
 for tile future. J'.nj;land ami the I'nited States, I sa'd, had each liecume uwaie of tho 
 defects thai <'xisted in internat iona! law, and 1 tlinu;j;ht it woi.Id >ireatly re<li)und to 
 the li*Miiir of the two )ivineipal maritime nations of the world to ;if temi>t the impiove- 
 nients in that coile which had iteen pi.'ved to be necessary. It »as possililc,! added, 
 that the wounds iidliclcd by the war were still too I'eeent, and that tin ill-will to- 
 ward ICn^jlaml was still too rite, t<t renilrv hmcIi an undertaking;' practieaiile at the pres- 
 ent niiniieiit ; but it Wiis one which oii<j;ht to be boriu in mi'.id, and that was earnestly 
 desired by Her Majesty's eovcriimenl , as a means of promoting; ]ieace ami abafiny; the 
 honors of war; and a work, tlier, /ore, which would be worthy of tlic eivili/.-vtion of 
 our aee, and which would entitle the pivernnu'iits which achieved it t() the ;irat'tud.e 
 oi' mankind." 
 
 It is not necessary in this memorjimlnm to dwell on the allej^edetliciiin-yof the Ain«r- 
 ican as conipai'ed Io the Kii;vli>'h for»'i;^n enlistment act. Tlie failure of the American 
 act in t he rortniiucse c'im's, in i he icpeatcd tiiilnisteiiiM^ e\|H'ditioiis of Walker ;»y;.iinst 
 Cenlral America, ,'ind the acipiittiil under il of Lope/, the invader of Cuba, are p<oofs 
 that it-'ai'tioti eaniiot always be relied upon ; and this is t'urther eoriobmaled by the 
 ilillicnlties now biin:; expi-rieuced in dealing; with tin- Hornet at \Vilmint;ton. Al- 
 thon;;b. as .Mi'. I'isli ?.m\s, there have been p>roseciiti.>ns n ler it, it is l»elievei| that 
 fi'<Mn the trial ot (iideon Hcnlicld in 17'.t:> to the present d-. there has never bei'ii a 
 crimiiial con\ ietioii. The only result of the proceedinjjs hi nm has bi'cn to restore'; 
 prizes, never to punish privateerinji' ; and the e!fe t of the bonds n Inch the act pro- 
 vides may be taken thai the oirinrn of a vcssid shall in:t //(c/»^^( /c/i, employ her in a btd- 
 lijLjelent ^erviee, ;inil which has, it is believed, nevel' been piai't iiallv enforced, is, lis 
 .Mr. I'.eiiiis, of Mostoii, points out in his vi>luiue on .Vmeiiean iieiitr.ilily, to a<ld so niiicli 
 to the price ot"the \essel. 
 
 With ie;;ard to the ciaiius for " vast national injuries." it may be as well to oliseivo 
 that I'lotessor U'oolvcy. the em in en 1 .\m. riciii jiu ist, has repudiated them as enteiKkble, 
 while the strongest arji'uinenls in lir. or of tlii' reco^rnilion ui' conb'derate bidlij^ereiicy 
 are to be tbuiid ill the notes to Mr. |)ana's ci;; 'h etlilion -.it' Wheatoii ; and -N'.r. Law- 
 rence, ( the editor of the second aniiotatv'd edlllon ol V> ilea I on,) in a recent ••pceell lit 
 Ih'istol, stated tliat " as far as lespcetf the eoii'(iianit tounded on the reco^rnition of the 
 bclli{j;erent li^-hts of tile (•onfedei'iites, I cannot use too stronjj; lan;,;uaije in pronounein;; 
 its niter baseless eliaiiicler. No tyro in iiilernational law is i;;niu'aiit that iM-Ui^erency 
 is a simple ipicstitui of fa«'t. NV'ilh the late Sir (oinewaii Lewis, we may ask, if tin* 
 array of a million ol nii'ii on eaclnadt docs net. ciuisti'uie belli;.;erenc\, what is bellip'r- 
 uncy f Ibilt what was the proclamiition of the 1 resident, followed up by the condein- 
 nation of your ships ami I'ar^oes lor a \ ioijition of the blockade svliich is e».tai)lished. 
 hut the reco>;iiiti(ui ot a state of war f At this moment the I'nited stateM, ir, . 1,11 mi n^ 
 llu' pioperty of flic late eonfederate pivernnuMif , place lielore your tribunals their title 
 on the tact ol their lie in;; 1 he suiccssois (da </« Jiulo ^o\ eminent. I repeal dial, how- 
 evir \alld our eluiiiis may be against you on other grounds, tUvi'e is uut thu HliKlituHt 
 
proiifj;Iit f<«-- 
 itiiis till tlic 
 
 ■ iinioiint (if 
 I :i ili.-4|>iitch 
 
 :il rcliitiiiiis 
 
 iially liiiiiH- 
 
 ill :i recent 
 
 luitV. which 
 ii|i-liinl(iiti<;>; 
 :; liinle into 
 
 •Aoiild hvvve 
 
 i<" evelifs of 
 
 iial war; it. 
 t one of the 
 
 I set iit rest 
 
 's ot' )iMhlio 
 shut art! the 
 
 II Deeeinlier, 
 
 ]>nj((iejil to 
 e to aeeonilt 
 Avaie of th(.> 
 ' lediiiiliil to 
 hi' ilri|»love- 
 Me, I aihh-it. 
 ill-will to- 
 ut tilt! jires 
 as earnestly 
 uliatiiiy; the 
 viii/uliiin of 
 le ;:;rat'tuile 
 
 >f the Ainer 
 le American 
 Iker a^j.iinst 
 «, are |>'oofs 
 
 aled 1),V the 
 
 in^ston. AI- 
 lieve.l that 
 
 lever heen U 
 
 11 to restori" 
 tile act |>ro- 
 ler in u hel- 
 I'lirced, is, us 
 
 kM :^o nilieh 
 
 ll to olisei ve 
 S IMltelluMe, 
 
 >elli^;i!etit'\' 
 id Mv. Law- 
 It •■.|ieec!l at 
 lit ioii of the 
 iroiiimiiein;^ 
 iMllij^ereUi'V 
 isk, if thii 
 t is heUiner- 
 the I ondcni- 
 •.tnidisli4Ml, 
 I, . ■..wiling 
 Is tlieir title 
 1 thai, how 
 ill." shuhlottt 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 Ul] 
 
 pretext for an-, clr.im iiji.iiiist you hased on the jmhllc^ admission of ;> notorious fact, the 
 existence of vhich has heoii reeo^fiiiziMl hy every deiiartnient nf the Federal (ioverii- 
 ineiit." 
 
 Tlie course i.iirsued by Groat Britain in thctunitost lu'twcon Hungary 
 iiiul Austria iii 1818- '4!) may he cited as beiujj in striking contrast witli 
 the course j^tirsucd toward tlit^ United States ie 1801. 
 
 Alter the suppression of the insurrecticui at v ieiina (October '2\K 18^8) 
 the Austrian {generals deterininef' to inarcli aj;jainst Ilunijary. At tliis 
 time th.* coniliineci Austrian armii^s consisted of tibout i;5.">,0()() men. 
 The Ilunf^arians, on tiie other liand, with about 12r),(H)(> men, o(;cupietl 
 their entire territory, includi'ij; tiieir cajiital and all their fortresses. 
 The fortress .»f Ivomorn, i)erhaps the strongest in Europe, appeavs to 
 have heen held by the Hungarians until the eml of the revolution. On 
 the l.'Jth of December, 1848, the Austrians seemed to have gained no 
 vi(!tories. Tln^ capture of Raab, th<; first of a number of successes which 
 they obtained prior to their complete (b'feat in March, 18M>, did not 
 occur initil December U(5, 1848; meanwhile the Hungari;' is liad lieen 
 organizing tor nearly a year for the [)urpose of making war against 
 Austria. 
 
 [See AiMiual Kegister, vol. 00, p. 401 ; and vol. 01, jt. .ilM.] 
 
 On the lltii c>' December, 1818, an envoy of the Hungarian executive 
 government adores:-v(i a note to Viscotmt I'almerston, offering to fur- 
 nish him with preinse intbrmatiou of the acttial state ol" the kingdom of 
 Hungary, ami asking au interview* \'ov that purpose. 
 
 On the l^itli of l)eceui)ier, 1848, the following r< ply was unide to this 
 retpicst : 
 
 Lord lidishur;/ to " * ' ' . 
 
 l'ii;i:ni\ Oi i-ici:, lUcrmbcr II?, l-'J-'. 
 •SiK: I am directed hy \'isc(iiuit I'alinerston lis acUiiov " .l;re the receiid of your letlei' 
 >,f the 11th instant, .iiid in reply I am to say that Visniiint Paimi-rstoii is sorry he can- 
 not leceivc yon. The Mritish iitiveriiiiieiit has no knowlediie of llnnjfary except .is mie 
 of the ((iii!|ioneM, )iarlsof lie .\iistriaii lOmpire; and any I'nniiiinniial ion which \i<u 
 have to make to ller Majesty's ;ioveriiineiit in regard to tiie comnienial inleic nirse 
 hetwci'ii (ireat lirilai.i and llmi;;ary slimtid, I iii'iidiM e, he made thioii;;h I!. iron Kollcr, 
 ?)ic rejtre-cnl.ii i\ e of the I'2mperor of Austria at this court. 
 1 uui, «.Vc.. 
 
 EIUSIMJUV. 
 (Itrilixkand Foreign Statt- I'ttptiH, rol. \\7,p(tijr 7'.>'X) 
 
 •i.— MEM(iliANJ)r,M LONCEUNJ.Nti TIJE UVAiEL CKLISKIW. 
 
 1. A hi ha ma. 
 
 2. Vltichaind.tuia. 
 ,'{. C lay face. 
 
 4. Coinad. (See l.\i.scaloosit.) 
 
 5. Florul(t. 
 <}. (h'ort/ui 
 
 7. yashrt'lle. 
 
 8. Stir York, 
 it. iirfrihiilion 
 
 (See Cbicksiuuiuga.) 
 
 H). Shcnamhmh, 
 
 1 !. Sumter. 
 
 12. Tavouij. (See Clarence.) 
 
 1.). Ti!ilah((SN(c. 
 
 14. Tuxrahumi. 
 
 UnlesH otherwise noted, the refer«'nces to volume ami page that fol- 
 low are to be fcumd in the puhlisluMl (/ompilation (.'laims of the United 
 Stiitus against (ireat Hrituin, 
 
344 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 ^■■■' 
 
 
 
 I'U 
 
 
 fl 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 '.«: 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 Ml 
 
 IwjJ, April 4, 
 
 .-■> 
 
 THE ALABAMA. 
 
 Mr. Dudley iulorms his j»ov(iinmeiit that Ji powerful ^uuboat 
 is buiUliuji in ^Messrs. Laird & Co.\s yard, at IJirkeuliead, prob- 
 ably for tJM' rebels. {Mr. Dudhy to .1/r. Scirard, April 4, 
 18GL* — not prinied.) 
 
 He ^ives notiee that she has been launched — muloubtedly 
 tor tile rebels. ( damn of the i'aittd /Stdtea mjoinst Great liritain, 
 vol. Ill, )K((je 1.) 
 
 !Mr. Adams requests Earl Russell to prevent l«er from sailing. 
 {t'hiiitts, it v., rol. J II, iHU/c o.) 
 
 Mr. Wilding", viceeonsul at Liver[)(»ol, sends a «lescripti()n of 
 the yun-lioat to his <(overn:nent, stating that she is called the 
 "Xo. 21)(>." [Claiiihs, it-f., col. Ill, pane li.) 
 
 Earl Russell refers the ease to tlie commissioners of customs. 
 [Claims, dr., vol. Ill, page (J.) 
 
 They report th«^ description of the vessel, and state that her 
 builders <lo not deny her to be a man-of-war, but say she can 
 not be seized without lej;al evidence of the purpose for which 
 she is built. {Claims, dr., vol. Ill, pane 7.) 
 
 In accordance with l^arl Russell's suu;;'estion, 3[r. Dudley 
 furnishes Mr. Edwards, colle<;tor at Liverpool., with the evidence 
 that the"Xo. 2!>0"' is intended for the rebels, {Claimn, dx:, 
 vol. Ill, pa<i<>i 17, 18.) 
 
 The commissioners of customs <lecide the evidence insullii- 
 cient to iustifv the detention of the vessel. [Claims, dr., vol. 
 III,pa<iis 1!)-L'S.) 
 
 Mr. R. V. Collier, (^)ueen*s counsel, gives it as his oi>inion 
 that Messrs. Laird cV Co. are littinjiout the "200" as a rebel 
 privateer, and that her detention wouhl be justitiable. (Claims, 
 d'C, vol. Ill, pa yes l(i-28.} 
 
 Counsel for tiie Cnited !->tates applies to have the decision of 
 the commissioners of customs reconsidered before the \essel 
 escapes. ( Vol. Ill, paffvs Jl(-;il.) 
 
 The "L'JMr" sails without a <-learance, uiuh'r pret«'nseof a trial 
 trip, with a part of her crew and provisions for six months. 
 Some ladies ami other jvassenjiers go in her as far as 1J»'11 
 IJuoy. as a ruse. ( Vol. Ill, paf/is .'Jl-;>7, Claims, dr.) 
 
 In accoj-daiice with the report of the law ollicers or<lers are 
 sent by tele^iaph to (^)uei'nstown and Nassau to seize her. She, 
 however, avoids those ports. [Claims, dr., I'ol. Ill, payts 11, 
 Md-MLJ.) 
 
 The "2iH>" anclnns near Port Lynas, where the tu;j; Her- 
 cules takes nu)rt' men to her. Mr. I)udley states that she also 
 receives cutlasses and powdei', and has six guns concealed in 
 lier hold. [Claims, dr., pat/is .U, !.">, Ui, od, VV.), 14(», Lt7.) 
 
 She arrives at Terceira, .\/,ores. 
 
 The bark "Agrippina" arrives from fiOndon with guns, 
 }immunition,clotlnng, and coal, which are all transferred to the 
 '•LMH)" at Terc»Mrsi. 
 
 The steamer "liahama" also arrives from Liverpotd, ami 
 proceeds with the"U!M»"and the "Agrippina,'' all three ves- 
 sels tlying Hrilish colors, to .\ngta. Here h»'r cargo, <'onsisting ol" mom-y 
 and guns, is put on Ijoard of the "-!>()." Semmes and (►ther ollicers ami 
 men are also bvought out in her. [Claims, dr., payis V}, Hi, TtO; also, 
 hW-m.) 
 
 .luT.f SI. 
 
 Jiilv 
 
 .l',nP25. 
 
 •Inly 
 
 .Inly 9. 
 
 •111!: I.'i, 
 
 ,»niy 18. 
 
 July a:u 
 
 .lu!y «). 
 
 A ir. \'J. 
 
 iMtW. \.| 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 345 
 
 ijLjiinboat 
 iul, pioh- 
 April 4, 
 
 oul)tt'(lly 
 tliritain, 
 
 iisailiiifj;'. 
 
 iptioii of 
 ilk'd tlu> 
 
 custouis. 
 
 that her 
 
 she can- 
 
 or which 
 
 , Diulh'y 
 I'vidt'iice 
 lims, tl'c, 
 
 e iutiiillli- 
 , tOc, rol. 
 
 s opiiiioit 
 
 s a rebel 
 
 {Cl<(iiii.s, 
 
 visum of 
 le vessel 
 
 )f a trial 
 months, 
 as IJell 
 
 (lers are 
 r. Slie, 
 
 IHKjCS 17, 
 
 Hii Iler- 
 she also 
 
 ealed iti 
 17.) 
 
 ii ;;iiiis, 
 '<1 to the 
 
 ool, and 
 iree ves- 
 )!' money 
 cers and 
 "•(I; rt/w, 
 
 i-«ia, oit. 4. 
 
 (■««, Oct. «. 
 
 Mr. Adams addresses a note to Earl Russell, calling: atten- ,^... ^^ , ^ 
 tion to the further i)rosecution of illegal and hostile measures 
 against th(^ United States in eonnection with the rebel (Muiser now called 
 the "Alabama," and transmits evidence. {Claims-, d-c, rol. If I, pages 
 44-47.) 
 
 His lordship replies that the report of the law oflicers of the ^^., ^ ^ ^, 
 Crown was not received in time to detain the vessel, but that 
 on .Inly L»!> (the day when she sailed) orders were sent to (^ueenstown 
 and Nassau to stop her. She, however, avoided those ports. (Claimn, 
 d't'.. jKtfic 47; <ils-o,pa(fcii 1. '54-1 42.) 
 
 Mv. Adams informs Earl lijissel of the de])redations commit 
 ted by tlu' "Alabama'' at the .Azores, and that other similar 
 enter]>rist's an^ on foot; [vol. IIF, pages 41), T)!);) transmits deposition of 
 (.;eor<4'e Kiny, and urges the enforcenuMit of the laws of neutrality. 
 
 Earl K'nssell replies that much as he rej^rets such occur- 
 rences, " Her ]\rajest;^'s {»overnment cannot go beyond the laws 
 numicipal an«l international." {Vol. ITT, page ~>\.) 
 
 Mr. Adams transmits an intercepted letter substantiating the 
 rdh'gations made olthe infringements of the enlistment law by 
 the insuigents, which receives the sanu^ answer as his preceediiig note. 
 { Vol. TIT, pages a], .~>(l.) 
 
 Earl Russell (communicates report of the law oflicers that the 
 Alabama did not receive her armament within the IJritish <lo- 
 niinions, and that no steps can be taken to prevent a repetition owing 
 to tlie dilliculty of as(!ertaining the intention of the parties nndving the 
 shij)nu'nts. ( Vol. HI, page Tt'.S.) 
 
 i\lr. Seward sends copies oi papers to Mr. Adams relating to 
 the dejiredations of the Alabama, and instructs him to send 
 copies to Karl Hussell. {Vol. ITT, pages TA-^u.) 
 
 Mr. Scwar<l sends to Mr. Adams tlu' rescdutions of the New 
 York Ciiamber of (%>mnu'rc«». ( Vol. HI, pages Ol-d.'}.) 
 
 Informs him ol further devastation by the Alabanui on the 
 high si'as. {Vol. HI, jiage HI.) 
 
 Mr. Adams submits to ICail Itussell copies of papers received 
 Iroin Wasliinglon, and IVom the (consul at Liverpotd, relative 
 to the depredations of the AIal)ania, and asks redress. ( Vol. I IT, pages 
 
 7(»-7;{.) 
 
 Earl I'lissell informs Mi'. Adams that iier Majestv's govein- 
 
 ' \**i\'* I>MC I*) 
 
 nient cannot admit their lial)ilify for the proceedings of the reltcl 
 ciiiiscr. but thinks tiiat amendments might advantageously be made 
 t<» bolii tlu' Hritisii and Anu'rican laws. ( Vol. Ill, pages SS-IL*.) 
 
 l-'url her correspondence on this subject ]U'odiu'es no eflcct, (co/. ///, 
 jKtgcs !•;{-!(((), 114-llS, 1(14, Kll.) Earl llussell expresses the hopes 
 that n»» liirtiier claims will be niade. {I'((ge 1(14.) 
 Sinking of the Ilatteras. ixfti ,i;,„. u 
 
 Ilcr crew taken to INul Ivoyal, Jamaica, where the Alabama 
 is rcjiiiircd and icceives provisions and coal. The British ad- 
 miral makes Semmes a visit on board of his vessel, which is treated like 
 a regular ship (dwar. {Claims, dr., rol. 1 1 1, page \~A)-, lirit. lilue Hook, 
 X. Ameriea, jVo. 1, bSJiO, page 141.) 
 
 is I 
 
 l>"t'. Oil. '.•(1. 
 
 IHlii 
 
 .) 
 
 The Alabanui enters Saldatdui Hay, Cai>e (!ol(niy, where she 
 discharges her prisoners, is painted, vS:c. {Page 10(i.) 
 
 She captures the Sea Bride o(f ('ape Town. The United 
 States (Mtnsul juotests against this outrage, but receives no sat- 
 
 N. H. — Fur a lint of vessels wliicli took our ivriiw, siippliuM, &,c., for the robulH, from 
 Gruut lirituiii, nee Claims, iji-c., vol. I, page T.W. 
 
 I*i:i, July ss. 
 
 ixit.'t, A III. i. 
 
346 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 1863, O.t. 11. 
 
 I'- 
 
 isfaction fi'om the governor of the colony. {Claims, tOc, vol HI, puqcs 
 107-172.) 
 
 Mr. Adams is instructed to inform Earl Russell that he nuist 
 continue to give him notice of claims. {Chiinm, ttc, vol. Til, 
 pages 170-178. 
 18US Oct M ^^^ ^*' informs Earl Kussell, aiul transmits further evidiMiee. 
 "{Claims, ct'c, vol. Ill, pages 180-201.) Tiu* Alabama continues 
 her depredations on American commerce, for w )iich no reparation is 
 made by the British {.,ovcrnMUMit, notwithstanding the continued pro- 
 tests of .Mr. Adams, ( Vol. Ill, pages 201-257.) 
 1863 D« ai ^^^'^ «'oals at Singapore, where her commiinder is entertained 
 by the otlicers of the garrison. {^Qly Adventures,''^ ttc, Scmmes, 
 pages 711, 7ir).) 
 
 JSiui is allowed to land her prisoners at Malacca. (" Mu Adven- 
 /M>r,sy' tCx'., page <11).) 
 
 The Alaltama returns to Cape Town and takes in coal and 
 provisions. (" .1/^ Ail ventures,''- <fc, page 744.) 
 
 She is sunk by the Kearsarge. {Claims, li'c, vol. Ill, page 
 257.) After this an extended correspondence takes jjlaee, the 
 United States Clovernment denumtling the surrender of the pri.soners 
 carried to England by the yacht Deerhound. Tiiis denumd is refused, 
 {Claims, d'C., vol. Ill, pages 258-ui;3.) 
 
 18At, Mnr. 20 
 
 i->i;t. .iMtii'iit. , 
 
 CIIIOKAMAUCiA. 
 
 
 n 
 
 i 
 
 iis 
 
 im 
 
 British-built vessel, (manuscript t^.'spate!., Dndley, 250,) to 
 run block'ule; arrived at Bermuda early in April, (manuscript 
 dispatch, AUen, 100,) Engage«l in running blockade, with cotton, be- 
 tween Bernuula and Wilmington. Then known as Edith. 
 
 Left VV'ilmington in rebel service to cruise against commerce 
 of the United States ; made ca[)tures. Name changed to 
 Chiekamauga. 
 
 Came into Bernuula; was allowed one week to make repairs, 
 and 25 tons of coal. 
 
 Left Bernuula. 
 
 At Wilmington, Xorth Carolina, to uidoad guns and take in 
 cargo of cotton. This vessel is also reporte(l to have nuulo 
 captures under the name Olustee. 
 
 18(M, Mar. 
 
 18(U. Oit, n. 
 \mt. Siiv. «. 
 
 imu, Nov, i.'i. 
 
 1864, N (.V. 20. 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 CLARENCE. 
 
 Tiu^ brig Clarence was captured by tlu^ rebel steaiiu'r Florida, May 0, 
 18G;{, ami immiu'd with one twehe-ponnd howitzer, 20 nu^n, and 2 otU- 
 cers, umler command of Lieutenant Ree<l. She sui)se(pi«Mitly <'a))tnred 
 the bark Tacony, .1uik> 12. Tlu' guns, iS:o., were transferred to the 
 Tacony, and the Clarence burnt. The Clarence was cleared at tlu' Liv- 
 erpool «'Ustom-house, NovtMuber 20, 1802, by W. & IL Laird. {Hunt's 
 Merehants^ Mag., vol. 53, 448.) 
 
 THE FLORIDA. 
 
 The iron screw steam-gunboat Oreto, or Florida, with three masts, 
 bark-rigged, eight poith«)Ies for giuis, carrying sixteen guns, was built 
 at Liverpool, February, 1802, 
 
 >Ir. Adams iu>tified Lord Kussell and inclosed evidence. 
 
 186*. K.l>. IS. 
 
 ( Vol. 2, Claims, page 59.'i.) 
 
ITT, pufies 
 
 b he must 
 , vol. TTT, 
 
 ovidciico. 
 [;()ntiiiiie.s 
 irntioii is 
 
 UU'll 1)10- 
 
 torfaiiu'd 
 
 \[\j Aflvcn- 
 coal ami 
 
 J//, IK(!/C 
 
 |)la<'e, the 
 prisoners 
 s retiiseil. 
 
 , L»r.(),) to 
 
 aiinscrii)t 
 )ttoii. be- 
 litii. 
 
 omincree 
 illlgrd to 
 
 L^ rei)airs, 
 
 (I taive ill 
 ivc made 
 
 I, :srav (J, 
 
 id 2 orti- 
 
 cajttun'd 
 
 d to tiie 
 
 the Liv- 
 
 e masts, 
 was built 
 
 L'vidouce. 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 347 
 
 IHiW, K. 
 
 Wia, M.ir, 2.',. 
 
 IWii. April X 
 
 l'«il>, M.ir. 27. 
 
 HliS, April l«. 
 
 {Piuje 
 
 fifVi. Aug. I 
 
 Lord Russell communicated a report of connnissiomTsot'ciUS- 
 toms that the Oreto was a man-of-war built for the Italian gov- 
 ernment, and was takinj? on board coal and ballast, {fb., pmje 5".)").) 
 
 Mr. Adams af;ain addressed Lord Itussell with further evi- 
 dence, (lb., jMi{/e ."»!)!).) 
 
 Mr. Adams iidbrnuHl Mr. Seward that the vessel had sailed. 
 
 Lord Russell acknowled<;('d Mr. Adams's communications 
 and said that intjuiries woidd be made. {lb., patjc 002.) 
 
 Lord Russell informed Mr. Adams that the commissioners of 
 customs at Liverpool report that the Oreto cleared for Pal- 
 ermo and .Jamaica in ballast, and sailed with a crew of 52 men. 
 GOr>.) 
 
 Mr. Adams reported a conversation with Lord Russell, in- 
 formiufj him of outrajfes committed by the Florida, or Oreto, 
 upon American vessels, and of the conduct of tlu! authorities of Nassau 
 toward this vessel, which was deenu'd to be at variance with the proc- 
 lamation of neutrality. (lb., pat/c G(KS.) 
 
 It appears from the consular records of the State Departnu'ut that 
 the Oreto was seized at Nassau on the 8th of June, by Her Alajesty's 
 gunboat Bull-dog, for infringement of the foreign eidistment act, and was 
 released on tiie arrival of Captain Semmes at that port about that time; 
 that she was again seized, libeled, tried in admiralty, aiul released on the 
 2d of August. It appear«d in evidence that she was, when seized, in 
 the same state of armament and eijuipnu'ut as when she left Liverpool; 
 that the Judge held that, had he been sitting as judge at Liverpool, he 
 shoidd liave condemned her; but that his limited jurisdiction at Nassau 
 prevented him from doing so. (Appendix to Alexandra ease.) She left 
 Nassau on the 9th of August; ran into Mobile -Ith of September; 
 sailed from there January 1"), ISO;}, 
 
 Mr. Adams gave Lord KussfU additional evidence of the char 
 acter of this vessel, (lb., paf/e.s iilii, 014, 015. 
 
 The Florida entered Nassau and the oflicers dined with the 
 governor; she took onboard jtrovisions, also chain-cable, and 
 rigging, ami ten or fifteen recruits, and sailed on the.'Ust instant. (Tb., 
 pajie (»17.) 
 
 Took on board coal and provisions at Barbadoes, under pro- 
 test Irom L^nited States consul. 
 
 Mr. Atlams communicated to Lord Russell further evidence 
 of tlie character of this vessel. (lb., pane 021).) 
 
 Mr Adams ('ommunicated to Lord Russell further infornui- 
 tion concerning this vessel. (//)., fxnje 037.) 
 
 jNIr. Adams communicatcil to Lcuil Russell further evidi''nce 
 in regard to this vessel. (Tb., page OH.) 
 
 JMr. Adams communicated to Lord Itussell further evidence 
 of the al)use of the neutrality of the island of Bermuda in tlu' 
 treatment of this vessel, saying that she was allowed to remain nine 
 days in port, and to make that port a base of ojierations against Amer- 
 ican connuerce. (/"/>., paye 05L) 
 
 Lord Russell informed Mr. Adams that Her Ma jesty's author- 
 ities at Bermuj'a had exhibited commendable strictness and '*'*' ''*^'" ' 
 diligence in er forcing the reguhitions, ami that lu) substantial deviation 
 from their letter or spirit took place. (lb., page 0.53.) 
 
 Mr. Adams communicated further evidence in regiwd to this 
 vessel. (lb., page (i5(J.) Among these alUdavits is evidem;e of 
 her arriving in British waters. (///., 003.) Lord Russell objectt'd that 
 this proof was not under oath, {ib., GOO,) but it appears to have 
 been taken before a notary. 
 
 1M«2. Oil. 'J, 
 
 l«t;:i, .i«n. *i. 
 
 IMIWI, Kcl). Z«. 
 
 i%3, .(uiy ; 
 
 lmi.1, Sept. HI. 
 
 !"«. Auk. VI. 
 
348 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 JAPAN, ALIAS VIRGINIA, ALIAS GEORGIA. 
 
 
 I;! 
 
 I 
 
 ?• "■ 
 
 lH)i3, M.ir, .'II. 
 
 iNtW, April «. 
 
 18li;i. April '.I. 
 
 IHffl. April 11., 
 
 Tiritishownert veasol; w.is built .at Dunbartoii, on tlio Clyde. 
 
 883. ,r. "c-ji^, ^^,.j^ equipped by u Liverpool firm — Jones & Co. Her 
 
 crew was shipped by same Liverpool firm for Shaii}»liai, and sent around 
 
 to Creenoek in a steamer — Heron. Siie was entered on the.'Jlst 
 
 of March, 1SG3, as for Point de Galle and Uoug Kong. {Vol. 
 
 II, jxojc G7G.) 
 
 She cleared on the Lst of April. She left her anchorage on 1*1.1 Apni 1. 
 the 2d <d' April, ostensibly to try her (Migines, but did not i-*'.!. M.m ■>. 
 return. She had no armament on leaving (Ireenock, but a few days 
 after her departure (pttfja GTl) u small steuiner called tlu» Alar, {pnyt^ 
 073,) freighted with guns, shot, shell, »S:c., and having on board a i>art- 
 ner of the Liverpool firm who had ('(piipped her and shipped her cnnv, 
 left New Haven and met the Georgia off the coast of France, near 
 [Jshant. Tile cargo of the Alar was successfully transferred to the 
 Georgia. 
 
 On the 8th of April ]N[r. Adams bnmght the case to the atten- 
 tion of the IJritish government, and repeatedly thereafter, as 
 occasion aro.se, reminded Her Majesty's government »)f the uidawful and 
 piratical character of the vessel. {Pf(fjc 0(50.) 
 
 The (!rew of the Georgia consisted of British subjects. On 
 the IHh of Ai)ril she left Brest on her cruise against conunenre 
 of the United States. {Page G87.) 
 
 The Alar i)ut into Plymouth on th«^ 11th of April, bringing 
 the Liverpool merchant, who had directed the procieedings 
 throughout, and bringing also fifteen seamen who had refused to pro- 
 ceed ill the (reorgia, on learning her character a>^ 1 confederate cruiser. 
 The rest of the crew remained. 
 
 At the time of her departure the Georgia was registered as the prop- 
 erty of a Liverpool merchant, a partner of the firm which shi|>i)e(l the 
 crew. She remained the property of this i)erson until the 2'>U\ 
 'of .June, when the register was canceled, he notifying the col- 
 lector of her sale to foreign owner, Edward Bates. (Piufc G77.) From 
 the 1st of Ai>ril to the 23d of -lune, the (reorgia being still registered 
 in the nanu» of a Liverpool merchant, and thus ids property, was (larry- 
 ing on a war with the United States, with whom Great liritain 
 was at peace. During this period she captured the Dictator 
 and burned iier; captured and ransomed the (Jriswold. {P(f(je <>S7. ) 
 
 The crew of the Georgia was paid through the same Liverpool firm. 
 A copy of the advanc(^-note used is to be found on page GS3. After 
 cruising in the Atlantic burning' and bonding a number of vessels, the 
 Georgia put in at Simons' Bay, Cape of Good lIoi>e, and calked her 
 decks. At the end of two weeks she de[>arted, continuing her depre- 
 dations until the 28th of October, when slie arrived at Clier 
 bourg. {Pdffc (»87.) Many of the crew left the shii). The 
 wages were all paid by the Liverpool firm. The same firm eidisted 
 more men at Liverpool; sent them to Bn>st. (/*m/<',v 707, 708.) The 
 Georgia left (vherbourg on a second cruise; was nnsuc(;essful, 
 !*.», M»yi. ^^^^^j roturned to Liveri)ool on the 1st of May, 18G4. It was dis- 
 covered that she had been sold, and Mr. Adams, on the 7th of 
 June, 18G1, informed British goverinnent that United States 
 did not recognize validity of sale in neutral port; that the United 
 States claimed right to seize vessel wherever she could be found. [Paye 
 710.) 
 
 lS<k), .111 
 
 IW«. April : 
 
 1803, Oil. l"*. 
 
 IHA4. Juni- 
 
le Cly<U'. 
 /(). Her 
 it around 
 1 the.'Jlst 
 
 8-. {Vol. 
 
 IHitl. April I, 
 lKr,:i, \pril ■>. 
 
 fVnv (lays 
 ar, ipxfjt' 
 (I a [>ait- 
 ler cnnv, 
 ICC, near 
 (I to the 
 
 lieatten- 
 'after, as 
 wfiil and 
 
 cts. On 
 oninier(!e 
 
 bringing 
 leeedings 
 [ to i)ro- 
 ^ cruiser. 
 
 he pron- 
 >l)e(l the 
 1 tiie 2;}d 
 the col- 
 ) From 
 gistered 
 IS (!arry- 
 t IJritain 
 Dictator 
 ()S7. ) 
 ool firm. 
 
 After 
 sels, tlie 
 ked h»*r 
 r depre- 
 at Ciier 
 1). Tlie 
 enlisted 
 S.) The 
 ccessful, 
 was dis- 
 le 7th of 
 1 States 
 ) United 
 
 [Page 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 349 
 
 l«ll. Ana. 11. 
 
 On the 30th of July she entered at the custom-house as load- 
 ing f<n' Lisbon and Africa, by Edward Bates, the prett-nded 
 owner. (Pof/e 722.) On the llth of August she steamed out 
 to sea, under British colors, bound for Lisbon, to Hll an engage 
 ment with the Portuguese government to carry mail from Lisbon to 
 Africa. Before f-he reached Lisbon she was captured by L'nited States 
 steamship Niagara, ('aptain Craven commanding, and sent to Boston 
 as a prize. (Page 720.) 
 
 On the l.'Jth of August, Jones & Co., of Liverpool, w«>re tried 
 for fitting out an<l enlisting men for the pirate .Tai)an, alias '■**''*'"•, 
 Viiginia, alias tJeorgia, before Lord Chief Justice Cockbinn and a 
 spe(;ial jury. The jury found them guilty, and the court lined John 
 Jones and Robert Highat £"»0 each. 
 
 THE NASHVILLE. 
 
 Hi; I, (lit. :vt. 
 
 Steamer Nashville, carrying two guns, and flying (confed- 
 erate flag, arrived at Bermiula on October 150, l.S(Jl, having 
 run out of Charleston on the night of October L*0, lS(;i. [iSn- jkkjc o3S, 
 Vol. II.) 
 
 She took in a large supply of coal against the protest of llie United 
 States consul. (/S't;6'^><J//<'.sr>3S, i")30. Vol. II.) Although thtM-omnuuider 
 of the Nashville had told the governor that she was strictly a merchant- 
 vessel, (.set' page 570, Vol. II,) nevertheless the governor onlered that 
 she should bo treated as a vessel of war, and unusual courtesies were 
 extended to her officers by the officers of the garrison. {See pages 
 540,541, ro^//.) 
 
 On the 5th of November, 1801, she sailed from Bermuda, and 
 on the 10th of tlie same month fell in with the American packet- 
 ship ILuvey Birch, which she first plundered, ami then burned, and on 
 the 2I.st November she arrived at Southampton. (See p<«fes 
 540,550, Vol. II.) "" " 
 
 On the 2(Sth November, 1861, iti rei)lv to a note from the 
 
 It.' Im'A Nov *H* 
 
 American minister, Mr Adams, iiupiiring "as to the authority 
 possessed by this vessel to commit so aggressive an iwi on the citizens 
 of a friendly power, and then to claim a refuge in tiie harbors of Oreat 
 Britain," Earl llussell says: "I have to state that the Nashville appears 
 to be a confederate vessel of war, her commander and officers have com- 
 missions in the so-styled confederate navy; some of them have written 
 orders from the navy department at Richmond to report to Lieutenant 
 Pegram" for duty "on board the Nashville, and hei- cicw hiive signed 
 articles to ship in tlie confederate navy." {iSvc page 55."», Vol. If.) 
 
 The Briti.sh autlu)rities i>ractically carrieti out their <lctermination to 
 consider the Nashville a regular man-of-war by detaining the United 
 States man-of-war twenty-four hours after th^^ former's <leparture from 
 Southampton. (See j)age it^'iH, Vol. J I.) 
 
 After having been in port over two nu)nths, having undergone repairs, 
 and having taken in a supply of coal, the Nashville saile<l Irom South- 
 ampton on February 3. 1802. (Sec pages 503, 588, 580, 5t>0, 
 Vol.11.) "*''"'"■'• 
 
 On the 20th of February, 18G2, the Nashville reached IJer- 
 muda, having met with no vessels on the way. (See page 500, 
 Vol. II.) 
 
 While at Bermuda the Nashville was allowed to coal, notwithstanding 
 the fact that, ou the day before lier arrival, the govermu- had informed 
 the United States consul that the British government had determined 
 
350 
 
 GENERAL Ari'ENDIX. 
 
 
 Wi : 
 
 V; 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 p'r. 
 
 H : 
 
 |>^ i^ 
 
 y 
 
 iHiia. Kill. 
 
 I«ft7. 
 
 iNi:), Niiv. I.. 
 
 lS(i:i, N.i 
 
 not to allow tlio formation in any British colony of ,i coal-depot, for 
 tlu* nsc of their vessels, hy either the (J(»vernnient of tlu^ United States 
 or of the sostylod (Confederate States. (.SV'<'/)rt//e.voO(), olM, Vol. fl.) 
 
 Mr. Allen, the United States (;onsel at Berrinida, writes that 
 the Nashville left Februaiy 4, havinjj; taken on board a hnndred 
 and fifty tons of coal ; supposed destination, Charleston. [See im</<' ")!>!, 
 Vol. II.) ' 
 
 Nashville captured and burnt olf Savannah by United States block- 
 ade s<iuadron. [llmiVn Mvrch. Mafj.^ vol. 'hi, p. 447.) 
 
 THE UAl'l'AlIANNOCK. 
 
 The Rappahannock was built for the British j;overnnient, 
 and nauKMl the Victor. She was sold by the admiralty in the 
 early part of Noventber, l.Sd.'}. Ilcr rcf^ister, «late<l November 
 (», shows that Robert Gorden ('oleman, a British subject, of 
 L\S ('Icment'slane, London, was sole owner. ( Vol. II, iku/c liui.) 
 She was delivered to the purchaser on lOth November, at 
 " Sheerness, in an incomplete state, without masts, sails, oj- ri*;- 
 gin^'. (17)/. IV, page -iHii.) 
 
 Preparations for a vt)ya}j;e were at once procee<led with rapidly, under 
 thc! superintendeiute of the <lo(;k-yard of1i(;ials ; the captain of the jj^ov- 
 ernment yard having san(rtioned tlw leave of absence to a party of rig 
 gers, they were i>laced on board by the master rigger, ( Vol. II, paf/r 732.) 
 and continued work until two «lays after her arrival at (Jalais. ( Vol. II, 
 poj/cs 742, 74.'i.) While at Sheerness her name was changed to the Scy 11a ; 
 the masts of Her INraJesty's ship Cumberland were used as shears to set 
 her masts; tin? engine-room stores were: |)Ut on board wliile sln^ lay in 
 the stream; these consisted of gauge (!ocks for the boilers, blocks, and 
 other things having the government mark upon them ; they were ordered 
 to be buried under the coal by Mv. Itumble;, the chief inspector of 
 machinery atloat at Sheerness, and Mr. Ramsey, the then ca ptain. ( Vol. 
 II, poije 74S.) 
 
 It was given out that she was destined for a voyage to China. ( Vol. 
 II, piujc 741.) Mr. Humble undoubtedly knew the true character of the 
 ship; lie with the (!ai>tain introduced all tlu^ workmen on board, [Vol. 
 7/, y)<f//r.s 74S-774;) he gave directions with respect to the rigging and 
 other equipments; heeugaged men indifferent capacities, ( Vol. 11, ptiffv 
 74."{,) and agreed with them as to wages. Similar si>rvi(;es were rendered 
 by the petty olllcers of the governuuMit yard. Mr. Bagshaw, a foreman 
 in the iioiler department, in tlu^ absemu' of Mr. Rumble, engageil l)oiler- 
 inakers to go to Calais, in which transac^tion Mr. (Jreathea*!, a <',liief en- 
 giiu'cr in the royal navy, also particripated as paymaster to the families 
 of the men. ( ]'ol. II, pocjc 74").) 
 
 She was prepared for service with the greatest secirecy and dispatch 
 as a confederate piivateer, under (!over and protection which her for- 
 mer owneiship, jjroximity to the yard while being tittetl out, and the 
 emplovnu'ut of hands from the vard, threw around her. ( Vol. II, ptujc 
 724.) ■ 
 
 The ecpiipment pr»>ceeded up to the 24th of November. On 
 that day the |)arties interestetl in her appear to hav<^ received 
 intelligenc«' which <'hang«Ml tin'ir plans, ( To/. //, piKje 7.'54,) for in the 
 evening ol that day, about midnight, she snddeidy made h»'r departure, 
 ( Vitl. II, piuje 7.'J2,) in a very imiomplete (iondition, with Mr. Reuben 
 llarvey, the government pilot, in commaiul, in tow of a tug boat, ( Vol. 
 It, p<i<j(' 742.) The master rigger of Sheerness dock-yard was on Itoanl 
 when she left, but returnetl in the tug. Bedding, blankets, and remain- 
 ing part of her stores were put on board from the tugboat which look 
 
depot, for 
 t«Ml States 
 f}l. IT.) 
 i^rites that 
 a liniidied 
 
 itPS l)l0(!k- 
 
 vcrmiiont, 
 alty ill the 
 NoveiiiluT 
 subject, of 
 , pnge I'M).) 
 leiiiber, at 
 lils, o\- rij;- 
 
 (ll.v, under 
 f the }jfov- 
 irty of YV^- 
 fXKfi' T.'ili.) 
 {'Vol. II, 
 :heScvUa; 
 ears to set 
 slie lay in 
 loeks, and 
 reordered 
 speetor of 
 tain. ( Vol. 
 
 la. {Vol. 
 ter of tlie 
 ard, {Vol. 
 
 '^\\\:£, and 
 /. //, }m(ic 
 
 rendered 
 I f(H'eina.n 
 ;ed boiler- 
 \, chief en- 
 e families 
 
 dispatch 
 I her for- 
 t, and tjje 
 /. //, jUUJC 
 
 iber. On 
 <■■ re(!eived 
 or in tlie 
 U'parhire, 
 r. Iteiiben 
 oat, ( Vol. 
 on Itoard 
 d reinain- 
 hich took 
 
 r^i 
 
 GENKUAL APPENDIX. 
 
 351 
 
 lie\' out to sea. Soon after slie left Sheerness tlu' sliii)'s name (Scylla) 
 was painted from otf her stern, ( Vol. TI, pai/r 7.'51,) and the name Uap- 
 l)aliaimock was painted on. ( Vol. II, pofjc r}\)'i.) 
 
 Sheariivi'd at (.'alais in the ni'dit of Wednesday, the 2.'>t!i 
 ot November, and entered the harbor the next day, ( To/. //, 
 2)a(/i' 7.'54,) just previons to which she raised the confederate tla^. ( Vol. 
 n\ piujc 742.) 
 
 J)iiriii<;tlie stay at Calais of the Uai)pahaiiiioek, a^t'iits were employed 
 in London and Liverpool in i)ro(Mirinj^ men to serv(^ on her. ( Vol. II, 
 paffc.s, 7r)()-7.sr>.) Allotments were to lie paid by Messrs. Jones & Co., 
 of Liverjiool. These certificates were all si<«ned by Wm. V. A. (,'ainp- 
 bell, the commander of the I'appahannock. ( Vol. II, page 7<»L*.) Mr. 
 Knmble, who had arrived about the 1st of December, nsed his 
 inlliieiice to pro(;nre enlistments. {Vol, 1 1, p(i(jc 74~).) 
 
 una. ii<T. 
 
 The Kappahannock remained at Calais until July 2, l.SO."*, 
 
 ls(i.'i, July a. 
 
 IAm. .Inly 4. 
 
 IHW. July 7. 
 
 when she left that jiort and arrived at Southampton on tlu 
 4th, bearing the naim^ of the lieatrice. ( Vol. II, page 1\Y^.) 
 Here she coaled and nunh^ her way to Liverpool, where she ar- 
 rivi'd on the 7th of that month. Proceedings were here insti- 
 tuted against her by the United States (iovernineiit. She was 
 condemned and sold and the proceeds of the sale passed into the hands 
 of the I'nited States. 
 
 Although without any technical evid<'nce upon which to rest a remon- 
 strance, the United States ininister at London considered the case of 
 the Ivappahannock s peculiar as to justify him in making a representa- 
 tion to Her Majesty's government, which he did on the 2Sth of 
 Xoveiiilier, l.S(;3. {Vol. II, page Til.) Earl Russell replied on 
 the oOtli that the attention of the proper ollicers had been (;alled 
 
 WHS Vov 30 
 
 to tlui matter, and that steps would be taken to verify the 
 truth of the statements made. ( Vol. II, page 71*8.) Furtlu'r representa- 
 tions were made by ]\lr. Adams on the oth ( Vol. IT, pane 7LM)) 
 and V2t\i {Vol. II, page 733) of December, and again on the 
 Kith ( To/. i/,j>ff(/t' 735) of tliat month, supported liy allidavits 
 showing the preceedings in connection witli her fitting out at 
 Sheerness, and the enlistment of men for service on her. On the l<>tli, 
 {Vol. II, 737,) Earl Kussell, in reply to the notes of the oth and iL'th, 
 wStates that Iler Majesty's government are fully determined to put in 
 force the laws ag:iinst any persons who have trangressed them in tiiis 
 niatt«'r. Further evidiMice was furnished by Mr. Adams on J)e- ,ho3, nt..a3. 
 cember 23, 1<S(»3, {Vol. II, page 73S,) January J>, ( Vol. II, page 
 747,) Ajiril Tt {Vol. II, page ITA) and \i\,{Vol. II, page 704,) 
 and May 4 ( Vol. II, page 771) and 23, l.S«;4, ( ]'ol. II, page 77(».) 
 To these notes l']arl liussell replied that the attention of the 
 jn'oper departments of Her Majesty's government had been 
 called to the matter. 
 
 I«U. Jiin. », 
 
 l"";t. Ami.'). lii. 
 
 1*>I, May4.2:l. 
 
 1-«14, 
 
 \<V 
 
 KETRinUTlON, AFTERWAKl) Kl'TA- 
 
 -SCIIOONEU. 
 
 iiebj'l cruiser; originally a blockade-runner; received armament from 
 schooner Dixie; captured several prizes. 
 
 Came into Nassau, and sold, in liahamas, her pri/e schooner 
 Hanover. (Manuscriiit dispatch, Hawley, o.) 
 
 Was sold herself in liahamas. Name changed to Etta; I'itta 
 seized in New York by L^nited States authorities. >Iessrs. 
 Henouard \' (3o. have claim as owners against United States for ilam- 
 ages. {lirHixh Blue Bool; yorth America, 10, 1804.) 
 
 |Hf,:), K.I.. 
 
 IHIVI. Mir. ■ 
 
352 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 THE HIIENANDOATI. 
 
 f\: 
 
 
 I vti 
 
 I 
 
 
 IMftl, ne\. M. 
 
 1864. No 
 
 I'.l. . 
 
 On Octobers, 1804, tlio stoaiiier liSiurel, of about .'MH> tons, 
 cleared tVoni Liverpool, having on boanl a portion of the late 
 Alabama's (!re\v, one hnntlred men, and six {?iins, munitions, and stores. 
 {Viuje 318.) 
 
 The steamer Sea King, built at (Masgow, of about 1,()7() tons 
 and lioO horse-|K)wer, cleared for JJombay, October 8, LSOt, with 
 a cargo of (;oal oidy. ( Vol. Ill, pa<ics ,'UJ), .'VJO.) 
 
 Both vessels pro(!ee(led to an isian<l near Madeira, where the <;argo 
 of guns and munitions was transferred to the Sea King from the Laurel, 
 the former now assuming the name of Shenandoah. (Payat 320, 3'Jl.) 
 
 Mr. Adams submits allidavits concerning the Sea King to 
 " " "* Lord Itnssell. (iV/e 323.) 
 
 Earl Russell transmits to Lord Lyons tlie dispatch of the 
 I8I14. 1)., H. liiitish consul at Tenerilfe, showing how the Sea King was 
 transfcrr<Ml to the confederates. [Pwje 331.) 
 
 Lord Itussell acknowledges receipt of ^Ir. Adams's note of 
 November 18, with the depositions. (P(nje 335.) 
 
 Lor«l Russell informs Mr. Adams that the sale of the Sea King- 
 is stated to have been regular. [Piuje 337.) 
 
 United States consul at Melbourne informs Mr. Seward of the 
 arrival of the Shenandoah there. She is recognize<l as a bel- 
 ligerent, allowed to go into dock for repairs, to coal, and ship a crew. 
 Authorities render assistance. (Pages 384-444.) 
 
 Mr. Adams calls Lord Russr'l's attention to further proceed- 
 ings of the Laurel at Nassau. Remonstrates against her clear- 
 ance with confederate mails, and demands her detention. {Poffe 330.) 
 Lord Russell replies that ettbrts were made to prevent viola- 
 tion ot law at Nassau, and will inquire as to her carrying con- 
 federate mail. {Pitfie 341.) 
 
 Lord Russell informs Mr. Adams that the proceedings of the 
 Laurel may have rendered her liable to capture on the high 
 seas, but that carrying the mail was not unlawful. {Paffe 344.) 
 Mr. Adams lays before Lord Russell evidence ot the Shenan- 
 doah's depredations in the Brazilian waters. {Pages 345-349.) 
 Lord Russell replies that Her Majesty's government have done 
 all that could be done legally to stop the evil complained of. 
 {Pages 350-357.) 
 
 Mr. Seward incloses to Mr. Adams the Jlelbourne dispatch 
 180.,, ^'"' ' j^^ui pj^pjij-s jiiiti 11 claim for indemnilication, which Mr. Adams 
 submits to Lord Russell on October 21, reviewing the Shenandoah's his- 
 tory. {Pages 3G9-37G et seq, to page 444.) 
 
 Lord Russell acknowledges receipt of these papers. {Page 
 444.) 
 
 Shenandoah arrives at Liverpool, and is surrendered and re- 
 ceived by British authorities. {Pages 444, 445.) 
 
 Mr. Adams will receive the vessel, but calls for punishment 
 ot her crew. (Page 447.) 
 
 Earl Clarendon replies that attention will be given to Mr. 
 Adams's note. {Page 448.) 
 
 Mr. Dudley gives the history of the Shenandoah's transfer 
 to his custody. {Pages 454, 455.) 
 Earl Clarendon informs Mr. Adams that the government 
 "**'*" "will not detain the Shenandoah's crew, and it is reported that 
 none of them are British subjects. {Pages 4G0, 4G1.) 
 
 lMk'>. ¥i\>. 1. 
 
 1M5. Feb. «a 
 
 IfWi, Mar. 
 
 IMA, April )>. 
 
 1865, April r. 
 
 1866, Mar 4. 
 
 1801. Oil. 
 
 iHd.'). Ni.v. r. 
 
 ItKtt, Nov. 
 
 lafiTi. Nov. 7. 
 
 1884, Nov. II. 
 
m 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 353 
 
 \0i) tons, 
 th(* liitc 
 
 (I StoH'S. 
 
 070 tons 
 S04, with 
 
 lie (!iirso 
 ii Liiiirel, 
 
 ), ;vji.) 
 
 King to 
 
 ih of the 
 Ivinj? was 
 
 s noto of 
 
 Sea King 
 
 ird of the 
 
 as a bel- 
 
 [) a crew. 
 
 • proeeed- 
 lier cUnir- 
 (fe 3:i0.) 
 iMit viola- 
 ying con- 
 
 igs of the 
 
 the high 
 
 Vtu/e 3-14.) 
 
 \ Slienan- 
 
 j4r)-;uo.) 
 
 lave clone 
 ainetl of. 
 
 disi)atch 
 r. Adams 
 oah'a his- 
 
 ■s. {Page 
 
 il and re- 
 
 nishnient 
 
 n to Mr. 
 
 transfer 
 
 rernment 
 [•ted that 
 
 \mV>, Nnv 14, 
 
 IMU, Nov. 17, 
 
 l*t,V Niiv, M. 
 
 I*i.'i, Ni) 
 
 iHii'i, n.i'. »n. 
 
 IWVi. n-r. .K). 
 
 txm. 
 
 IHfifi. ,I;in. 19. 
 
 Mr. Adams exproasos his dis.satisfaction to Lord Chirendon 
 over the reh»ase of the crew. {l\vjt'H 402, 40.'{.) 
 
 Lonl Chuendon rei)re.sents, in reply, tiiat no evidence is con- 
 tained in the papers heretofore snbmitted warranting a prose- 
 cuti<m. {ra()mW\ \\)\.) 
 
 Ileply of Lord Clarendon to Mr. A<lams's note of Ocrtober 21, 
 atllrniing that tlie action of liis government in relation to the 
 Shenandoah is according to law, and no other course was open to it thau 
 that followed. {Pagea 40i. 40.S.) 
 
 Mr. Seward direc'ts Mr. Adams to inform Lord Clareiidon of 
 the (loverninent's views as to the depredations of the Shenan- 
 doah and lelease of her crew. (Pngen 4iiJ>, 470.) 
 
 Mr. Adams transmits to Lonl Claremhni full testimony con- 
 cerning the cruise of the Shenandoah, her armament and crew. 
 (/Vflff'«47r)-41)L) 
 
 The above acknowledged by Lord Clarendon. {Pop^' 401.) 
 
 Lord (JIarendon states that Mr. Adams's letter of December 
 28 contains the first evidence submitted bearing on the piracy 
 of \Va«ldell, and breach of the foreign-enlistment act, but it was not sufii- 
 cient for conviction. {PageH 401-40.i.) 
 
 Lord Claren<lon to Sir F. IJru(!e replies to Mr. Seward's dis- 
 patch of November 30, atlirming the strictly legal condn«!t of 
 his government in discharging the Shenandoah's crew, and refusal to 
 prosecute forjjiracy. Inquiries will be made concerning the action of the 
 Melbourne authorities. [VmjcH 494-408.) 
 
 Mr. Seward informs Sir F. Bruce, in reply to Lord Clarendon's 
 dispat(!h of January 10, that the convictions of his government 
 had not been changed thereby. {Vngc 408.) 
 
 Lord Clarendon reviews the testimony submitted by Mr. 
 Adams on Decemher 28, with a letter from the governor of Vic- 
 toria, as to the charges concerning tlie action of tlie authorities there, 
 and theenlistmentof seamen on the Shenandoah. {Pagat 41M)-507.) 
 
 THE SUMTER. 
 
 The Sumter was an American-built vessel, trading between 
 New Orleans and Havana. 
 
 Having been armed and equipped as a vessel of war, she ran 
 the bh)clvade at New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Adams informed Lord Russell that she had been supplied 
 with coal and other necessaries at Trinidad, which is conq>lained 
 of as a breach of the proclamation of neutrality. ( Vol. 11 Claims^ page 
 484, 5.) 
 
 Lonl Russell denied that there had been, in what was done, a 
 violation of neutrality. ( lb., page 48(5.) 
 
 She arrived at Gibraltar, where she received a new anchor 
 and cable. Owing to the representations of the American con- 
 sul, she was not able to sup])ly herself with coal. 
 
 She was sold at auction, (lb., 510.) 
 
 She proceeded to Liverpool, (/ft., o 10, .520.) 
 
 Mr. Adams invited Lord Russell's attention, claiming that "^'^^'^ 
 the sale was invalid, and that her remaining in port was in violation of 
 the Queen's proclamation. Lord Russell denied this, and a correspond- 
 ence ensued, {lb., page 520 et seq.) 
 
 She sailed from Liverpool with a cargo of guns and supplies, 
 and was afterward wrecked at Charleston. 
 23 H 
 
 IWfl, F.h. 9. 
 
 IS66, ,Tiinc fl. 
 
 IHiil ,r.ini.»). 
 
 IHiil, Shj.i. .1(1. 
 
 ISfil, Ori. 4. 
 
 \K6t, Jnn. 1«. 
 
 IHRJ, Keh. 1". 
 h. IB. 
 
 IW3, July 3, 
 
354 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX, 
 
 THE TALLAHASSEE. 
 
 IMU. Aim. I.V 
 
 This vessel was originally u bloekade-runner, HiltiHlibuilt, called tlie 
 Atlanta. 
 
 In 1H04, as appears l»y a letter from Mr. Sttward to Mr. 
 Adams, she ran ont of W'llniington armed, and commenced 
 ernisinp: and pillajjinj; oil' New Yoik. 
 
 She was retionverted into a mendiantman, christened tlu' (Chameleon, 
 and took a carjjo to Liverpool, where at the <!lose of the war she was 
 claimed by th<t United States and sold, and the proceeds paid to the 
 cre«lit of the United States. 
 
 For the correspondence in regard to her see Vol. Ill Claims, page 314 
 et seq. 
 
 TACONY. 
 
 lltCil. Jn 
 
 The Tacony, formerly the Clarence, Lientenanl Reed, made 
 several captures, and was destroyed by her crew June 2li, 18(i;i, 
 who left in the schooner Archer, and were substMpiently captured by an 
 expedition from Tortland. {JIuuVh Mtrchanfit May., vol. 53, 448.) 
 
 THE TUSCALOOSA. 
 
 I u 
 
 li :: 
 
 i 
 
 IHIK. .iMtir 24 
 
 ]HtA, Alia. 7. 
 
 The Tuscaloosa, originally called the Conrad, was captured 
 off the coast of Jirazil by the Alaltama. linns were placu'd 
 upon her, and she was ]>ut in charge of a lieuteimnt and ten men, and 
 employed as tender of the Alabama. 
 
 She entered Simon's IJay, remaining there seven days; her 
 cargo was sold to a British merchant in Cape Town. She was 
 detained by Ilritish authorities, and subsequently released, with warn- 
 ing to the cajttain of the Alabama that ships of war of the belligerents 
 were not allowed to bring prizes into liritisl; ports. 
 
 She made two captures in her character of rebel cruiser. {Claims, tbc, 
 vol. — .) 
 
 3. AMOUNT OF CLALMS. 
 
 1. ClaimK bvloiighig to the Uniltd States. 
 
 The United States should be reimbursed for all the actual outlay 
 expended in the pursuit and capture of the rebel cruisers. 
 
 They may also fairly clai n, as representing the community, to be 
 re imbursed tor the outlay caused by the increased i)remium and en- 
 hanced freights resulting from the special risk growing out of the ope- 
 rations of the rebel cruisers fitted out in English ports. 
 
 2. Claims of individitnls. 
 
 The following is believed to be a proximately complete statement of 
 the amount of claims thus far presented to the Department of State for 
 injuries committed by the rebel cruisers: 
 
 By the Alabama $5, 243, 103 00 
 
 ]ty the Boston 400 00 
 
 Bv the Chickamauga 114, 140 85 
 
 Bv the Clarence 14, 520 00 
 
 Bv the Florida 3, 020, 448 98 
 
 Bv the Georgia 320,35150 
 
 By the Nashville 70, 583 95 
 
called tlie 
 
 rd to Mr. 
 otnineiiced 
 
 'li>iiii<>U*on, 
 nr slu' was 
 »aid to tliu 
 
 iHfpage 314 
 
 Iced, made 
 I ('22, 18(i;j, 
 iihmI by au 
 
 148.) 
 
 a captnrod 
 I't'iv pla(!»'d 
 1 iiiuii, and 
 
 days; her 
 Slu' wa8 
 with warn- 
 >elliyeiTnts 
 
 Jlaims, drc, 
 
 ;iial outlay 
 
 iiity, to be 
 lilt and eii- 
 of the ope- 
 
 atement of 
 of State for 
 
 245, 103 00 
 400 00 
 114,140 85 
 
 14, 520 0() 
 020, 448 98 
 320,351 50 
 
 70,583 95 
 
 , OKNKUAL APPKNDIX. '}")^) 
 
 Bv tlie Oinsteo ^''2, SCO 00 
 
 liv tlie KHiibution 20, 0S2 20 
 
 llv theHallie 5,510 (10 
 
 IJv the Slieiiandoah 4, 470, 100 3(5 
 
 Jl'v the Sumter 2, 250 (lO 
 
 n\ theTaeouv 8, H"' 00 
 
 By the Tallahassee 272, 8(;4 3S 
 
 Total 13, (it)2, 5(iO 34 
 
 '^Rfl 
 
 4. TIIK ni'TV OFfJKKAT HKITAIN'TO KKMAIN XKI TIfAL. AM> TO KM(»Ki;K 
 THK NKUTKALITY Ol" HKMISII HllUKCTS DllM.NCi TIIK fONTKST. 
 
 It will not be denied that v. 'latever «)bIi<jalioii there may be to main- 
 tain a neutral position in a war i.. iween two lecoj^ni/ed soverij;n powers, 
 exists eertainly to an e(pial extent in eivil war in wliieh both parties 
 are iiM'ojjnized as bellij-fieiits, and with still f{reat«>r force in a eoiitest 
 between a friendly p)vet iimeiit and an insur^eiir portion of its popula- 
 tion, whose resistance to its authority has not assumed the proportions 
 and attained the pn»ltal»ility of success to entitle it to be recoy;ni/e<l by 
 other nati(Uis as a b«'lli{,'ereiit. 
 
 ill 18(!7 the liritisli ^overnnieiit appointed a commission to iiMpiire 
 into ami ciuisider the character, workinjj;, and etVect of the Ibitisli laws 
 available for the enforcement of iieutridity durinj; the existence of 
 hostilities between other states v ith wIkuii (Ireat IJritaiii was at inace. 
 In 1S(>8 this c<uiiiiiissiou made a r«>port, (;ontainiii^, amon^' other things 
 ill the appendix, a nieiiioranduiii by Mr. Abbott (now Lord Tciiteideii) 
 of the variiuis f»reij;n enlistment acts of (Jrcat Britain and other ctuiP 
 tries, iucludin<f the Unitetl Htates. This meiiioranduiii is to be loniid 
 in the fourth volume of ( 'laims aj;ainst (Jreat Britain, jtaye 0;» it saj. 
 
 It resulted from this rep(ut that the comprehensive enlistment act, 
 which may be found in the " Foreijjfii Ilelations for 1870," pnge 158, was 
 passed. 
 
 It is not supposed that the liability of (heat Britain to indemnify 
 individual hjsses occasioned by the several cruisers will be seriously 
 disi)uted, if it be first establislied that the cruisers were constructed, 
 equipped, armed, or reiiifonred in her jiorts, in violati«ui of her inter- 
 uational oblij^ations to the United States. But to make that point sure, 
 the followiii}? correspoiMlence (not c(Uitaiiie<l in Mr. Abbott's memo- 
 randum) between Mr. tlcOerson, then Secretary of State, and Mr. Ham- 
 mond, British minister at VVashiuj;ton, is intnxliiced. This c(Uiespon- 
 denee jjrew out of the illefjfal acts ccMiimitted by French cruisers, alludeil 
 to in Mr. Abbott's memorandum. It is to be observed that this ciures- 
 poiidcnee took ])lace before any statute or muiii(;ipal law had b(>eii 
 enacted by the United States, and the <luty of the United States in that 
 respe(!t is placed upon its international <»bli}>atioiis to (Ireat Britain; 
 and also that the action of the United States was taken witlnMit any 
 information furnished by any agent or representative of the liritish 
 govenimuut. 
 
 ilr. Jefferson to Mr. Hammond, 
 
 Oeiimantowx, November 14, ITDU. 
 Sir : I have to acl\iio\vli>(lj;«« tlie receipt of yoni- lutter of tim 7th iiiHtunt on tlio 
 siilijei't of thf llritisli hhip l{o«hain]>t()ii, taki'ii uiiil hciU into Haltiinure by the Ficiich 
 privntevr the Iiidtmtry, an arnietl Hchooner of San Duiniii;;<k, whicli JHHn^^rcHtetl to havo 
 augmented her foire at Haltiniore liefore the captnre. On tliis cireuniHtunce, <leniaud 
 iH grounded that the prize Hhe hua made ahull bu restored. 
 
i55G 
 
 GENKRAL AJTENDIX. 
 
 I 
 
 hiU 
 
 ¥. 
 
 
 1 Ui 
 
 IJi'Ciiri' 1 |i!oci'i'(l ri( (lie iniitlcrs ui fiut in lliin cfuto. I will tiike tho liborty of cuUiiijf 
 yoiii- alt. -Ill ion In ll«' rules whicli art- to j^ovcrii it. 'I'Ik-.sc ufi' — 
 
 iKt. Tint rest it Ml ion ol' iiri/i-s liai ix't-n inmlt' liy llm KxcrntiNi- of the I'nitcd Slistt'.s 
 only in the two fnsvn nt' ntiitnic with in llit-ir juried id ion, hy arnicil vcmsi'Is ori^rinaljy 
 ••oiistituttMl Hnch willioitt lli^ liniilM ol' the rmled .Stales; oc, 'Jil, .'f eajitnre either 
 wilhin or wttliont their Jiii i.stliclioii, hy arnieil n e.s.seis, ori]L!;iiially c. nsttlnle<l sueli 
 within tht- limits ,1' the I'niled Stales, whieh last have heen i ailed proseiihed ve^^sids. 
 
 •Jd. 'I'-i'.l ill Miililarx e(|iii|in)enlH wi;hin I he ports of Ihe I'niled Stnles are forl)id<ieti 
 lolhe Vessels ol the helii^erenl powers, even W here t llev ha\ i- 1m en eonsi it nied Vessels 
 (d' war liehne tin ii :iiii'.al in .mi ports; atnl where »neh <'i|nipmenls ha\e heen inadti 
 hifore deteelion, Ihev are ordi'l'ed to he sn)>pri-.ssed when delei-ted, ami the Vess<d re- 
 <lneed lo her ori^in;d condition. KnI. if they eseajie iiele''*ion allo^rether, depail anil 
 imike pii/.es, the I-',Xfenl i ve has not nnderlaken to rt-r,...re the prizes. 
 
 Wit h due eare it eati si-ai'eely happ<'ii that ndlitary ei|iii)itnentH of any ina^iiilndit 
 hhall escape diseuvory; those whieh aie small may so'.neiinn-s. jierhap.s, escape, hist to 
 pursue these so far as i.i decide Ih.il the smallest eircnmst.iiM'.'s of military ii|nipnient 
 lea vessel in our ))oits shall invaiitlale her prizes lhron;i{h ail tune, would he a mea^uro 
 of incaienlahle eonsei|ueneeH, Alul sinc«- (Uir inlellelence nnist he ^{overued hy soini) 
 ;;eneral rule, ami helween |i;reat and snndl ei|uipment.s no pi'acti<-ahle line of distiuetitm 
 can he drawn. \% will he attended widt iesH evil on tlie wh<de to rely on the I'l'licieimy 
 tit the nn-ans ol' pri'venlion, tha< iliey 'vill reach will: lertainly eiiuipnu'iils of any 
 nia;;nit ude, and t he ^real uia.'^ id' thost <if snudler impoilance aUo ; and if sinuc should 
 in theeveM oeape all our \ i<rilaiiee, to coiisidei these as ei the niiniher of cases whi"h 
 will at "inicH hadlt- the restraints of the wisest and hcHl-jjnarded rules whicli human 
 I'oiesijLfht can de\ ise. And I think we iiia\ safely rely th.tl since the re;;ulalioii.s which 
 ;;o| into a couise of execulion ahoiit the middle of Ai)t;'i:<t lattt, it IH Hcui'ctdy poH.sihli: 
 that ei{Uipmenls td° any importanci- should escape discovery. 
 
 'J'liese principles showiii;; that no ilemand of reslitiilion )i«»s on the };roiind of n 
 inei<- miii ary aheraiion, 01 an :in>ininentatioii of forci>, I will coiiHidiM' y<nir letter only 
 lis a eomphiint that the orders of ;iie I'lisideiil ]>rol,ihit iuj;; these have not had their 
 ellrcl in <lie case of ilie Industry, and ii)i|uire wiiether, it' this he so, it has happeiie.tl 
 I'ithei ln-n nej^lecl or connivance in those ili;i r;.;cd \\ith I he I'vecution of ihes: orderN. 
 I'or this wciiiu^l r • ^ort to fads, which shall he taken I'loni the evidence furnished hy 
 yonrsell and the li.ilish vice-consut at H.iltiuiore, and from that vvliich shall accoiu- 
 pany ll is Idler. 
 
 Alioii ihe he;;iiinint; <d' Aumnst the Industry is said to have arii\eil at Itsiltiinoro 
 withll'.e I'lench lied from San lioininjjo. The particular slate of her arniaincnl on 
 her ari'.val is lately i|Uvstioned, hut it is not (|Uesi>oned that she v\as:in armed vssel 
 of some dcjurei'. Tiie ]'",\eculive ha^ injj; received an intiimilio-i thai two vt^ssels wero 
 •Mjuin tin;; ■hemselves at Itallime'e (or a eniise, a letter WIS, oil the lilh of Au;;ust, 
 iiiidressed li the Secrdary of W'.u lo rhe j^iiveruor of M.irylaiid, desiring an iinpiiry 
 into the lail. In his ahsence, the executive eo\iitcil of Maiyland chai>;ed one of their 
 own liody, |,ii> Hon. Mr. Kilty, with the ini|iiiry. He proceeded to M.illiniore, and, 
 alter I wo ila> s" exam i nation, Ion ml 110 vessel answering; I he deseripiion of those wl icli 
 were the ohjcci id' his inniiii\\. He then en;{aKed the llrilisli vice consi.l in the searidi, 
 who was ml aide, any more than liiuis If lo discover any such .issels. Captain Kilty, 
 however, oliserviiii; a -choouer, whiidi appear: li to have In en making .some ei|uipuieiits 
 lor a end <e, to lm\ e aihled to her j.iun~!, and made some alleraiion to her waist, lho.<i{ht 
 thesn eirciimstaiici's m' riled examinatioi), thimi;li the ruli s ol' Au^iitt had not yet, 
 a;i|)i ai'ed. l''iudir<;>, tln>l ids im|uiries itxciteil suspicion, and feaiiu!.; the vessel nti^lit 
 he t/ididrawii, he had. her sei/ed, anil piocied.d in the iiivcstiuation. M ' found thai 
 sli.>wiis the M-hooiii r Inilustry, Caplain Carvin, from .San |)omin;;(i; that she had 
 hci'ii an armed vessel for three ye:irs hefore her eoniin;! here, and .is late as April last 
 ha \ moniiicd sixteen i^:mf * that sli(> now mounted oiily I welve, and he could not learn 
 Iha' slie had procnied atiy ^ lliesi 'ir done any! uiii;ri-lHe, ev'seiitial to her as a pri\a!ecr, 
 ill IhdtimiM'e. He ihend'ore disciiatyed her, and on the -J. Idol' Auy;ust the executi' u 
 louncil made the repoil to the Secretary of \V.ir, of which I im lose you n copy. 
 
 Ahont a lorlni;^ht after this (Si-pteniher i',) you add d to a Idler on other hiisiness a 
 hhort parai^raph. sayin;; lliat ymi had la'ely receive. 1 informaliou lliii' a vessel uauied 
 the Industry had. within the last live e.rsix weeks, heen armed ni.iiiued, and eipiippcd 
 in the |iort of itallimore. The proeeedin;;'s before nieiilioiied, Inivin^ heen in another 
 J>i'partment, were not tin 11 known tome. I ihend'ore ciutlil onlv comtiinnicate this 
 l(al,l;iia|.ll lo the propel I lepaiHiuieid . The separation of the I'lxecutive within a week 
 lifter prevented any < \plan.itions oil the suhjeci, and without Iheiii ilwasiioi in iii> 
 power eitli<>r to eoulrovert or admit the infinniatioii ymi li.id receiviMl. I'lider tli<M) 
 circiimsiaiices I think you innst he sensihle, sir, that your eiinelusioiis friiii my sileiici;, 
 that I re^i'irded the fact a.s proved, was not a very necessary oiie, 
 
 .New iiH|iiirieH at that liiiie could not have prevented the depiirtuie of the privateor 
 or t!ie capture id° the K'oehamplon, for the piisatecrhad then heen out fi>r some iiiii«, 
 tliu Kuuhiuiiptoii wau aliuiidy taken, and was arrivin^ at Kaltinioti' ; w hit h she did 
 
, 
 
 f of CuUill}r 
 
 litt'il Stutcs 
 s (iri}riii!illy 
 itiiri' citliiT 
 (dili-il siicli 
 
 re finliiiliicii 
 
 lllcil Vt'.--*l'ls 
 
 ■ lll't'll iiiiulo 
 
 W. Vessel le- 
 
 'lepaK ,'Uiil 
 
 ' iiiaKiiiluilt) 
 (:it)>e, liiit t(i 
 ,' ei|lli|illUMlt 
 •(• ii llieu'4lll'0 
 eil liy Ndino 
 rili^tiiietioii 
 u' »!lli<;ieti(;y 
 eiit!* of any 
 stnne hh^uiltl 
 ra-^eH \vlii"li 
 liirli lininaii 
 tinii.s wliieh 
 ;t"ly |U)»H)lili; 
 
 r letter only 
 III liail tlteir 
 IIN lia|i|M-lletl 
 lies: orileiH. 
 urnislieil liy 
 iliull aceoiii- 
 
 t MallipKiro 
 
 I lliaitielil oil 
 niieil VM.iel 
 esselH Welt' 
 »»(' Au;;llst, 
 til iiii|iiii'y 
 le 111' llieir 
 iMce, and, 
 
 ICIMC wl it'll 
 
 the search, 
 ilaiii Kilty, 
 i|iiipiiieiits 
 
 St, thn.'iiht 
 III ll'it yet 
 ^■•el liiinhl. 
 
 tOlillll lll.li 
 
 It she hail 
 A|M'il last 
 I not learik 
 t |iri\ ateer, 
 esecilli". t) 
 
 'I'.v. 
 
 Iiii-<in('*e« ft 
 lei iiaiiieil 
 
 1 ei|lli|i|)i'il 
 
 III aiiul hei' 
 
 llirile this 
 LIU a week 
 
 iiul III my 
 inler thiMi 
 II \ silence, 
 
 privufcnr 
 smile iim(<. 
 ieh "lie (lid 
 
 (;exkual atpkndix. 
 
 3')? 
 
 a1>e',,t tlio day "f th" dat(> of your letter. After lier arrival new witnewses have emno 
 forward to iiidve that the Iiidiitfry had inaile moiiic military ei|iii|imeiits at Miltimon* 
 liefore her ernise. The atlidavits taken hy the jlritish viee-cousnl are dated aliuiit niin> 
 (»r ten days after fhi' date of yonr letter anil ari'i\al of the ltiieliam|itoii : and we have 
 on'v to lament that those witnesses ha. I not niveii their information to the viee-eonsiil 
 wIk'Ii Nfr. Kilty eiijiiiijed his aid ir. the ini|niries he was makin;;, and when it would 
 have hail the eti'eet of onr detaitlin;; Mie privateer till she shonlil ha\e reduced herself 
 
 to th ndition in which nhe was v ,icn she ariixt'd in oiir iiorts, il' she had reallv 
 
 added anything to her then forci . lUxX supposing the testimony Just iind full, (tlioii'.li 
 taken CI- fuirti', and not iiiidei the Ie;j;al sanction of an oatli.l yt the governor's ret'i< <al 
 ti. restore the nrize was jierfectly propel-, for, as has heeii !iet'ore oliserved. restitiilioii 
 lias never Ween mad liy the l'',\ec.ntive, nor can he made, on a mere clandestine altera- 
 tion or aii};nieiit:ition of military ei|n'pnieiit, which was r.ll that the new lestiniony 
 tended to prove. 
 
 Not withstandini;, however, that tlic President thought the informatioi obtained on 
 the former occasion had cleared this privateer from anv \vell-^ri>iiiiil' d can c of arrest , 
 yet that which yon liuve now olVeied fipeiis a |iossiliilify that the fori'icv was defective. 
 He IniH, theietore, desired new impiirv to lie made liefore a ma^istrat.' K-i^ally aiithor- 
 i/.ed to administer an oath iimi iiidilfereiit to liotli parties; and should the result he 
 that the vessel did really make any military e(|iiipnicnts in our ports, iiistrnctious will 
 he i^ivcn to rednce her to her original coii' ition whenever she shall a;;ain come into 
 (»nr ports. 
 
 On the whole, sir. 1 hope yon will perceive that, on the first intimation. tlii'on;;li their 
 own cli.-iiiiiels, and withoni wailinu for iiitormation on your part, that a vessel was 
 making; military e<|nipiiiciits at l>:.ltimore. t he Kvcciilive took the liest measures lor 
 ini|nii in;; into the fac<, in order to prevt nt or suppress such ei|iiipmeiils ; that an otticer 
 of hi;;jh icspcil.ihility was c!iait;ed wiih the ini|iiiry; tliat he made it with lireat dili- 
 irence himself, and eny;ai;ed similar iin|nirics on the p.art of your vice-consul ; that 
 neither of them could Iind that this privateer had made such ei|nipiiients, wr, of course , 
 thai there was any ^loiind for redncin^ or detaininji her : that at the date of yoiir 
 letter of Septemlier I) (the tirst intimat ion received from ymi ) the privateer was <le- 
 parlcd, had taken her pri/.c, and that prize was arriving; jn poi-; : that the new evidence, 
 taken ten days after that arrival, c. mi produce no other elVect than the instil nl ion o| a 
 
 new iii(|iiiry, and a lednction ot' the for if the privateer, should she appear to lia\c 
 
 niii'le any military allcra'ions or aii;;iiieiitatioii, on her ri'tiirn into oiir ports ; and that 
 
 in no part id' this pr lure \-< ilice the smallest jjronnd for imputing cither iie;;li;.;ence 
 
 or cniini\ancc to any of tin- otiiceis w ho have ai'ied in il. 
 
 I lia\e the honor to lie, sir, with much respect, youi'M, Ac, 
 
 TH. .IKIT'KHSO.N. 
 
 Mr. Uricc to Mr. hiioj; Hecrttarii of H'or. 
 
 .\ss\i'n\.is, Mi>,, 
 //; Ciiiiiiil, .hiijiinl "j;!, IT'.Kt. 
 
 Slii: Yonr eninmimiciitintiM of the (»tli instant ;iiiivcd in the alisenee of (iovernor 
 I , who is i^one to the N'ii'uinia Sprin^fs. They were, o|' coiiise, taken into consider- 
 ation hy the council, whose as-.istaiice the ^ovel'nor, for reasiiiis stated to \t>n in his 
 letter of the lith .Inne last, has constantly rc<|riii'ed in matteisor this kitid. We im- 
 mediately jnloptcd the "\pcdieiii of di pntiii^ a nii'iiihei In It ill iiiiore, furnished vvith 
 all the authority we i .mid cont'ci-, to carry the views of the rresir.enl intoelVccl . ( ',ip- 
 tain Kilty, who ai'i-epted this mission, has reiiirned. and reports as follows : 
 
 That (in his arrival in Malliinoie he lle^an and for tvvoda.vs pnrsiied a dili;;eiit iii- 
 ijiiiry respecting; the two \essels said to he liltine out as pri\iileers, willioiit receivin>; 
 any satistactor.v account. That he then determined to interest the Itiitish vice-consul 
 (Mr. I'.dwjird Tliornt iii'lin the search; aceoidinely he opem-d his linsiiie.s to that ;;en- 
 
 tlenian, who he helieves used every endeavor to discover the privateers lni|nestloii, 
 
 Imt without elVect. That he (Captain Kilty) then took an acinal olisei vaiioii, in the 
 pnlilic hai'fre. of all the vessels in ilie harlior. and remained ai Icni^ih eonv inced that 
 either those di-scriheil hy the ."Secretary of War were n.it there, or ili.il llicv wei-i- not 
 in such a state of preparation tor criiisinuj as to make il pos..iliie to diseover tlnir in- 
 t( ittidii. That he had, liowev er, ohserv ed at a wharf on I'eH's I'oini a schooner inonni - 
 inn twelve ^niis. .\lt hoii^jh this sessid, as well from her si/e as her havinii come in 
 with the lleet frniii San |) niin;;o, cmild not In I he Viri'inia pilot lioal iiieiiiioned in 
 
 the Secretary of War's letter, yet as she .si-emed to have I n niakini^somc e!|iiiiinienlM, 
 
 tunl WIIH evideiitly intended for a criilm'. Captain Kiily thoiiuht it proper to make sonin 
 
 * Mr. Tb(irutoii won lliefutliorol' tliu |tri'»cril(llNtinuiili«li)Ml reiii'iMeiiiatlve nl' II. It. .M. iit \V'iiHliiiii,'.'>iii. 
 
358 
 
 GEXEKAL Ari'KNDIX. 
 
 ..SI 
 
 •11 
 
 it 
 
 i)ii|uii'ii>s rrHpt'ctiiiy; Iut. lie diil so, as far an wiis cDiisiMfmit willi his rcHdliitinii not 
 to aliinn tliiiyc coiiciM-nfil in Iht, until \w .should liav<; pr.t hitnsflt' in a t'linilitimi tii 
 Ht-i/,t^ lirt', if III- mIioiiIiI lin<l it m-t fsnary. Thi) caul ions nianiii-r in which thi.s consiilcr- 
 atiiin iii)li^i> 1 him to procciMl rcnilcrcil his intelligence very iiiconi|il(;t<-. On thewholo, 
 hdwcviT, it a|i|ii'ai'cii that shu hml adili-il to her niiniln-r of i^niiM ami niaile .some alter- 
 ation toiler waist .silicic heraiiival with tlu^ fleet, lint where the iwlilit ioiial cannon 
 were |irocureil lie lonhl not learn. Althoii;;h the re:;nlations on this siiliject hail not 
 then a|>|)eareil, it occiirreil to him that military ei|ni|iiiieiits (althiiiiu;h |>artial ones) 
 were nut penniiteil in onr ports, anil while he was icnisideriii)^ whether the circnni- 
 Htanceshe had discovered would Justify him in delainin<; the vessel, aed had returned 
 to I'eH's I'oint to make a linal ohservatiou and in(|iiiry, he learned that an intimation of 
 hisdesiy;!! was on its way to her romuiander. Apprehending, therel'ore, that s!ni would 
 (liiiw oil' into the stream, and make a visit to h>-r ditticult, if not impraeiiiviUle, he le- 
 soiNi'd to j^et possession while it was in his power, and aeeordiiiLjIy desireil Mr. (iray- 
 
 liill, the depiily marslnil, lo i t liini al an appointed hour with a few gentlemen wlio 
 
 cunld III' coiiiiiled in. i'liis iieiiifr done Captain Kilty went on hoard and inipiirei'i for 
 the captain and other oDiccrs, hut none of them were there, lie then j;ave the vessel 
 in charge to .Mr. (iiii\ Will, desii in;i him to do whiitever was nee(>ssary to disahle her 
 tlom lliovill); olf. lie then ini|illl'etl without reserve respecting; the ei|uipmeMls she 
 li.'iit made ill llaltiniore, Imt cmild not h-arn that Khe had procured ;runs or done any- 
 tliinn that was essential to herns a privalei'r. That having; leU the ve-<sel, he was 
 iihont to return to the town for the |iin pose of lindiii;; the ciipiain. w ho was said to he 
 there, lint wtis surprised with the appearance of a considcr.ihle hody of Ficnchmen, 
 with a Iciidcr and a drum at their head, marciiin^ hastily ioward tln^ sidiooner ; that 
 ltciii)r iicrMiiaded they intended to retake her, he ojiposed tlii'ir pro<;i'css, and some cir- 
 riiiiistaiices of tuiiiiilt ensued, wliii'h at length suiisided hy these people protesting 
 their i;;iioraiice of her h;ivin;; heen ta'ieti h.\ aiithmily. 
 
 Tliiil the next nioriiin^Captain Kilty icceiM-da visit from the captain, .lean Itaptiste 
 (';irvin, who is likew ise owner of the schoonci, and who wi;|i irieat temper iisked the 
 i°i :tsons of his vessel liav iiiij hccii sci/ed. That, on lieiii;;' iiifoiniid that the principal 
 ),:riiund of tin- measure was hi>. Inn iiii; etiliii>;i'd his nninherof ^itns, lie produced papers 
 si;;iicil liy the iiropcr oiliceisiii .San l>omin;{o. hy which it appemed that his vi-ssel, 
 lall'd the " I lid list ry." has cairied ;;iins tlie«e tint e years past, ami that on the I It li ol 
 April l.'ist slm iiioiinted sixteen, and ha<l a crew siilHeient tor privateering. Hi- pro- 
 duced llkewi.se a ('omiiii>siou or license for eruisiii;<;, Ity which, as he explained it. thu 
 pii/.es went to the pivernineiit, and the captors received a reiusonahh- ;;ratitieation. 
 After exhihitiii;: these pa)iers, he a.ssei'ted thai he li;id procured no ^iiiis, Ol' aiiylhiii^; 
 III' a military iialurc, e\ci-pt a few spare lammeis in ItiiitiiiKue, hui thai the ;riins he 
 iippeared to haveiiionnleil siiici' his .-triival were liroii<^lii in his Indd. lli- acknowl- 
 ed;;eil the purchase id some cordage and the cleaning; the hottoin of the Vessel, with 
 oilier things of an inditlcrcnt naturi-, and concluded with dem.indin^ it' I he ariiieil ves- 
 sels III general in the harhor were not eipiall\' liald<' to detention with his. 
 
 That, without ihinkliit; liimself oiili;;ed in ;iive entire credit to all these declarations, 
 Clplain Klilx still I'oiinil it llii|ios.<il(ie lodiiproxc aii>' ot' I iieiii, :ind. I herefoic, liclll;^ 
 salislicd llial no repreM'iit.it ion he should In- ahle to make would induce or aiilhori/.e 
 the Pcdeial Kxcciit i\ e to continue the I'estrielioM he had laid on the vcsm-I, hut that, 
 on the eontiais, heavy diima);es would he incurred hy the pulilic for her detention, he 
 Ii'solveil, al'icr he should previously iiHiuiie of the I'leiieh vice-consul rcspectin;; 
 ■ he ail I he lit icily of the doc n men is exhiliitcd hy the eaplain, to release ihe vessel. .\c- 
 i'oidiii;rly, he waited on that olllcer, who, with ;;ieat readiness, said iiiiich niori^ than 
 w.'is ii'i|iiircd, and, this ccicmoiiy heiiif; tinisheil, Captain Kilty directed Mr. (irayhill 
 to release the VcMStd. 
 
 We have the lionor to he, Nir, &c., 
 
 JAMi:s Ul.'lCK, 
 
 J'ltnidtHl. 
 
 i 
 
 ii'i 
 
 Mr, llitmmoiid to Mr, .ftj/frmon. 
 
 L.VNsi)o\v\, yovnnhir 'i'i. ]'!',y.\. 
 
 Silt: r hiive had the honor of receivlnn your letter of the I llli instant, upon which. 
 ns it ,'iiiiioniices the //.rif/ determination of this (ioveriimeni not to restore the Hritish 
 hhip Koehaiiipton, it is iitiiieeessary for me to otter niaiiV ohservalioim, or to enter into 
 II iiiinnt)' examination of the reasoning or tliti tact« by wliieli thut (lottTUiiinttioti is 
 Jnstilied. 
 
 I cannot, however, avoid l'elllalkiu^, that itllhon;rh your position miiy he wtdl foiMid- 
 (■d, "thai it would he .'i measure of inealciilaUle i onsc<|neiiciM to decide, that the iti»i(i //<''<> 
 I'lreiimstunccs of niilitaiy eiinipmenl to a vesrtel in" your "ports should invalidate liui 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 359 
 
 oliitioii not 
 iiiiilitiiiii to 
 is ciiiiHitliT- 
 
 tlm wliult), 
 .siiiiii^ iiltt;!*- 
 iial (Million 
 •rt llilil not 
 irtiiti oiii^s) 
 111) lirciim- 
 ul ri>tiiniiMl 
 liiiiittion of 
 
 .s!ii^ woiiltl 
 ill.lr, li- n- 
 l Mr. (iiM.v- 
 lliMiicii who 
 iii|iiir('ii tor 
 r till' vessel 
 ilisiiUlt! Iicr 
 iiiii'iils slm 
 I' iliiiie aiiy- 
 «si'l, lie was 
 IS said lo lie 
 
 l''li'lli'lllllrn, 
 
 loner ; dial 
 
 III some eil- 
 
 |iliilestill<{ 
 
 ■an Itaptiste 
 r asked the 
 he |ii'iiiei|ial 
 iieeii |ta|iei.s 
 t his vessel, 
 the llth ot 
 J. He |iro- 
 
 kineil i(. I he 
 ratiliralioii. 
 )l' allVtllill;; 
 
 he i;lins he 
 aekliovvl- 
 Vessel, with 
 
 aniieil ves- 
 
 eelaiatioKS, 
 lore, lielll;; 
 
 I' aiithui'i/.e 
 1, hot that, 
 
 etelitioil, he 
 lispeet in;. 
 
 Vessel. \i- 
 
 iiiiire than 
 til. (inivhill 
 
 .'K'K. 
 
 I'llxiiUlll. 
 
 poll wlliell, 
 
 the Hritisli 
 
 o enter into 
 
 iiination is 
 
 well IoimhI- 
 
 ) he HiHdIli'it 
 i.tlllllklt! ilUl 
 
 pri;';es tlironfjli all tiiiu'H;" it may also boa iiieasi re of incalciilaltlo iniseliief to fho 
 jjeiieral eoinineree of friendly powerH (exce|ttiii>j that ot Fianee) trading with tho 
 United States, if tln! hin/ixt eirenniMlaiu'e-^ of niilitary ei|iiipnient, superadded to p'reiich 
 ]iri\:i'ii'i'rs. ill yoiir ports, providiMl they elude t)ie viy;ilaiice of ilie ollieers appointed 
 to waleh over proeeediiij;s of this iial ore, shall not he considered hy this (ii>\ erniiieiil 
 as siillieieiit to invalidati- ]iri/es hron;r|it into its ports liy vessels under this preiliea- 
 inent. In the jin'seiit ca.se the faets are that the si liooner Industry, a-eordinv; to thb 
 deposition id' Heiijainin Maker, if Maltiniore, (at whose wharf and sliip-yar<l she lay 
 dnriii<; her additional etpiipnieiit,) had no niori- than Jour or nix eannon iiioiinti'd when 
 she was lironjrlit to his wharf; that, when she left it, "she had /n.-r sir-poini'l'-ri, vii/lil 
 foitr-jioHiidrrH, and two hoifil:irM rompliliUj iiionnliil ;" and that, from Mr. Kilty's rejiort, 
 it a|ipears that he himself was eonvineeil that she had added to the niimher of her 
 ^iiiis, aiid had made alterations of a warlike nature ; hnt as he eoiild not ha in wlu'iiee 
 these addit ional eannon had lieeii procured, he diil not deem himself just iiialde in re- 
 fiisiiiy; his assent to the aiilheiiticity of the dociiiiunits jn'odiiccd liy the i:i[ilain of the 
 Vessel, or in di'lainiii;; |i,.i- any longer. 
 
 The privateer Industry wis therefore allowed to depart from Halliiiiori> nnih'r an 
 tiii);meiitat ion of force more than doiilde to that it{' lur oriiihntl (iiiiunrnmr in thai port; 
 and to which aiiKinentatioii I have ri-ason to helieve that In-r siil)sei|iient ca|itiiro of 
 the shin Roehainpton is, in a niv.xt measure, if not eiitin-ly, to he imputed. 
 I have the honor to he, with sentiments of j;rcatest respect, Ac. 
 
 The ,s»*vt'iith artiflt' of tlit^ tfcaty of \ov(iMl»«'r 1!>, 171>I, jiftcf iccitiiis; 
 tliiil ct'itiiiii iiii'r<'li;iiits ami otlicis of Ilis IWitiiiiiiic .MiiJ»'sl>'.s siilijcct.s 
 liud siistaiiKMl lo.ss and tlaina^jc U\ the captnii' ot tln'ir vt'ssrl.s ami imT- 
 cljamlise, takni l»y v«',s.s«'l.s oii<,MaaIly aniicd in poit.s of llic I'lutiMl StaU's, 
 ayrrt'il that in all .sncli (-as{>h wlicit' fcstitiition .slionld not liavt* Inu'ii 
 niadr, tilt' roiii|>laint.s of the paitii's slioiild he rcfci'icd to <;oininissioii(>r.s, 
 antl till' rniti'd Stiitcs should iimltMtakt^ to |iay to tln^ claiinants, in 
 specie, without drdiictioii, the ainomit of such sinus as should l)e 
 awaidetl to them respectively by the eom!nissit)in'i'.s. (S Slut, ut l.ioujr, 
 p. IL'I.) 
 
 The history of tlie vaiinns steps siilisetpu'iitly taken by tln' {loveiii- 
 nient of the Tnited States, in its ditVeient In-anches, to !naint:iin its 
 sovei'eioiity and to picvent violations of thiit soveiei;iiity by aoeiits or 
 repie.sentatives of other powers at war with each other, ate detailed itt 
 len;:lh and with fairness by Mr. Abbott, in the ineinorainliim already 
 referred to. 
 
 It is claimed as a fair result of a review of Imt history: /7^.v^ That 
 (Jreat I>iit;iin, whij' \ is a ^reat naval power, with ;i stiouo; onvernment, 
 jios.se.sscd of all the niacliinery reipiisite to enable it to perforin its 
 duties, wiis bound to prevent, at its own risk, the :irmino^, eqiiippiiio, or 
 <'onstruction of any vessels whereby Wiir could be carried on ay:aiiist 
 the I'liited States, upon the oceiin, diiriny t he hostilities between the 
 riiited States and the insnri^'ents. Sinnnl. Th;it in any pariit^dar case, 
 failino; of its diiti«>s in tliat respect, (l real IJritaiii was boiiml to aiiest 
 and (ii'l.iin an> vessel «'sca)>in^ from its ports, whenever it shoidd ;ip- 
 pciir within its jiirisdii'iioii. Thinl. That (ire:it liritaiu wtis luriher 
 iioiind to instruet its naval forces in idl parts (»f the jflolw tu arrest ami 
 detain ves.s' Is .so escaping-, wheiu'ver they should be met. 
 
 In sup|>orL of this p opositiuu the following; ca.ses and authorities are 
 cited : 
 
 1. Ucftrence is uiatl • t(» the correspondence during; (leiu'ntl NN'ashino;- 
 ton's atlministration, above quoted, ami to the treaty of 17!>4, already 
 cited. 
 
 'J. To the speech of INIr. Canninii, in IH'J.'J, in I'arliiiment, (pioted in 
 I'hUlimiiii's Intcnuilional Liiu\ /•»//..'{, /;. 217, a** folhiws: 
 
 If I wished (Mr. ('aniiiiijj said) for a jjiiidc in a system of neutrality, I shooM takm 
 that laiil down hy Ainerici in the days of the ]iresidc-iicy id' Washintjfon and the H«'en' 
 taryship of ,1 MVerson. In IT'.Kt coinplaiiits uere made to the .\iiiericaii tioxeniiiieiit 
 tinit Fieiicli niiipN w(*ru iidowed to lit out iind arm in Aiiiericun purtH, for the piirpimu 
 
360 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 'r. 
 
 f-»fi 
 
 P 
 
 |ii 
 
 
 li 
 
 »t! 
 
 of attacking Itiitisli vcnsoIn, in direct oitpiisiMon to tlio laws of iieiitrality. Iiiiiin-ili- 
 atcly iii>oii tiiis ri>|ii'fK(;iitiitioii tin- Aiiuriican (iiiverniiicnt liehl that hii(;]i a littiii;; out 
 was I'oiitrary to tlic laws of Dcntrality, an*l onlt-rs wcio Issiiim! proliihitiii); tin* aiming; 
 of any Fifiich vcsncls in Ainciiian poits. At Ni-w York a Fri-nch vcsHfl litliny; out 
 was scizitl, (IfliviTiMl over to tin- tiiWunals, and conilt inut'd. Upon that oiTasiou the 
 Auu-ri<-an (iovfi-nniint held that sikIi fitting out of I'lrnch Nhi)is in AnuTicau ports, 
 for tin- purpose of cruisinf; af;ainst Kn;;lish vtsscds, was imtonipatible with tlie sovi'r- 
 fiffiily of th»! Ignited Stiitfs, and tended to inferrui»t the peaeo and good underslautl- 
 iii^ wliieli suhsisled between that country and (ireat Itrilain. 
 
 Here, sir, [he added,] 1 contend is the jtrinciple upon which wu ought to uct. 
 
 '{. During tliecivil war laging in Portugal, in 1S27, 1.S2.S, 1S2J), four vos- 
 s«'ls left Plymoutli ostensibly for IJra/.il, with six Inuulred anil lil'ty-two 
 otti(;erH and men. The liritish government of tluit day, believing that 
 it was destined for I'ortngal, dis|»at(!hed a Heet to Tereeira, (wiiich, it 
 may be »)bserved, was the plaee to whieh the Alabama first w«'nt after 
 her (h'i»artiue from England,) with orders, if the expedition appeared, 
 to give them warning against hovering aooiit or making any etVort to 
 elfeet a landing; and, in case of their persistence against the warning, 
 to drive them away from that neighborhood, and to keep sight of tliem 
 until convin(!e«l that they had no intention of returning to tlie Western 
 islands or proceeding to Maderia. It became necessary in carrying out 
 these onlers to lire up(>n the expeditieu. One man was killetl, some 
 were wountled, and the expedition was broken up. This a«'t gav«' rise 
 to an extende«l debate in I'arlianu'iit, and the condui-t of the goverii- 
 iuent was appr(>ved. {J/a)i.s<inl, rols. L*.{ < tui 24 N. tS. Annual li'qiister 
 JliHto)}/, dr., A. />. ISLM), ml. 7L', />. 187, «7 m/.) 
 
 4. .^Ir. IMiillimore says: "The courts of the North American Unite<l 
 States have«lecided that foreign ships which have offemled against the 
 laws <»f the I'nited Statt's, within theirjuiii-tliction, nmy be piiisiu'd and 
 sei/i'd upon the ocean, ami rightfully brought into the ports of the United 
 Siales for adJiuli<*atiou." ( Vol. Ill, p. li'J8, lio-sc vs. Jliniileii, 4 ('ranch, 
 L'.S7; Ihnhoii rs. iiutsi'nr, Cr. (I, 284.) 
 
 Much more evident is this right of capture at sea, when the olVenso 
 is one against not merely municipal but interiuitiomd law. 
 
 .">. Sir llobert Collier, on the L'.id of .luly, 1801,', on certain allidavifs 
 submitted to him, gave his opinion in regard to the Alabama, that it 
 was dillicidt Ut make out a stronger case of infringement of the foicign- 
 eiilistnu'iit act, wliich, if not enforced on that occasion, was little better 
 than a dead letter; and that it wt'll desj'rved consi«ler»li(»n whether, if 
 the v«'sscl were allowed to <scape, the Federal (lovernmeiit w«udd n«tt 
 have a serious ground «tf r«'m(Uistnin(e. |.^> i'laims, )>. L'M.) 
 
 This opinion was communicated ollicially to Karl Kussell by Mr Ad- 
 ams, .Iidy L'4, 18(»2, (.' Claims, /». L'(l,) and Sir IJolu-rt ('t»llier was, on tlie 
 L'd <lav of Octidter, iso:^. appointed sollcitor-g«>iM'i-al in tbf same admin- 
 istiation, In the jtlacc i>t Sir K'oumlcl I'alint'r, ma<h' attorney yt-neral. 
 
 (1. ( )n the 1st ((I Ai: . st, ls70,thr n»'W tbr«'ign cidi^v iiM'iit bill H a^ dis- 
 cussed in »iu' lloHM'iii I'oiiniMUis. In the cours«M)f <lel>ate 'Sh^ attoiuey- 
 geiieral said tha! -the h(»iior and dignity ofthi-rrown an ^-'inpromised 
 when the subjects of th«' (^Mn-tn take pait in liostilities a^^mtist an iilly." 
 
 Mr. Vernon llarcourt saidthat "iMMUiewoidcl diffei tnwu Lord Kus-ieU's 
 dictum, that the cas<' ^d ?tM- Alaltama wa^ a srandal to the I:mvs i>i that 
 coiintrN , and that fliosr roncerned im tlwi-i disastrous Iiautl <" iiiiNirted 
 tine ol the most nnpatnotic a<'ts of whi<'h an Knglisl'man h.Hi ev^i Imh'H 
 guilts." And Mr IJoundt'l Talm* said tls •< ** // tow ih< ihifti n/ the .'<latr 
 to nincs.H anu atfi mut on tiw ttatt »/ the i- alt > i lit ottiin.sf thv itnhiiv 
 
 <V 
 
 will to hi hriitntl. 
 
 iftt 
 
 [ 
 
 i- 
 
 Sff Foniiitt. Ar/«."//<»*v, \s'( 
 
 Oft/f 
 
 On the .'id of Augii»l Mr. \'crtu«a liawourl ^«~«•u^ in it, s^uW'4ueut do- 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 3G1 
 
 I 
 
 •. Iiimii'ili- 
 i littiii); Kilt 
 
 till- ikiiniii;; 
 
 litlih^ out 
 (■caNiiiii tilt- 
 j'ir-ikii itoi'tH, 
 
 I tln' HOVlT- 
 
 iiniliTHtaud- 
 
 nv.t. 
 
 \ four vos- 
 
 1 lillytwo 
 'viiijj tlisit 
 (which, it 
 vt'iit aCttT 
 iippcinvd, 
 V ftVoit to 
 
 waniiii};, 
 t of tlu'iii 
 * NVt'stt'iii 
 i-rviii},' out 
 IUmI, some 
 
 {•avc ris'j' 
 
 l« yovt'l'li- 
 
 l lii'iji titer 
 
 II) Unitctl 
 gainst the 
 I'sikmI and 
 he United 
 4 Crunch, 
 
 he oUeiisu 
 
 allidavits 
 a, that it 
 e l(»iei};ii- 
 th' better 
 iielher, if 
 oiiid not 
 
 I.' 
 
 :Mr Ad 
 
 s, on tl.e 
 le admin 
 •Mieial. 
 1 ua^dis- 
 it lot ties - 
 noiiiised 
 nil ;ill\." 
 
 UMtsH'irs 
 
 s ul YllHt 
 
 iMiHiMed 
 \ ;'r bneu 
 ' thi stair 
 
 bate on the same hill, tlwit " the policy of Washiiisfon in 170.'? was the 
 fonihlatioii of tlie whole of the modem practice on the isnhject of neu- 
 trality." {llaiistirfl, .W serieK, ml. !,'(>;{, p. 1'}{)1.) 
 
 7. Thecaseofthe *' International" and hercar;;(»,adiinlicated in the court 
 of admiralty, .lannary 17, J.S71, before Sir Robert I'hillimore, arose under 
 the "w forei;,fn-eidistment act. lu renderin};; tho decision thu distin- 
 jjnished Jurist said : 
 
 'I'liis Htiif iit(>, ]ia,MSf(l iliiriiiir tli»> hxnt sr'ssioii, Muilcr wliich tlio aiithi)rif.\ of tliis court 
 is now tor tlit- lirst f iiiu- rvokfil, is, in my jii<l;riiiciit, very inipoitanl, aiiil vny valniililc; 
 strcnfftlifiiinj; tiic lianils ot Ht-r Maji-sty's jjovri'iinirm. ami rinthliini Ihim In /idjill inorr 
 fHHiUi lluiH hvnlot'itrv thai fiitvlicHlur rlasmij' hiltriintioiKil iihliiiulioiin irhicli miiij urii^c mil of 
 the i-dikIikI (if livr MujiHtijH siiIiJitIh toward tHttt'unvtnt fon'tijn HlaUn, irilli iiiunii llir M<ij- 
 culy in at jiiacf. 
 
 The London Times of January 18, 1871, commenting upon t!ie decision, 
 says : 
 
 Tlio war lictwcon France and frcrmany broke out toward tlio ond of tlie last Hi'ssion, 
 and it was then rt'iin'iiiltt'ivd at tin- l'ol•^■i^ i oUjce tiiat our forviijii-viilisiiiiiiit uit inm iin- 
 jiiifrvl, and that a royal conr lisHion Itad rt>coinni<'nd)-d its aiiiindiiiiiit in si-viral 
 ItarticiilarH. A l>ill was accordingly intiodiiccd in liot liastc and V.iirritid tliroiigli Par- 
 liament. 
 
 And the Satiir«lay lieview of the 21st of Janimry, 1S71, says: 
 
 Tlif Amirh'aiiH Jiarc turn, lliroiifili tin' wlmlr roiiri'r of tliv .iliiliiimn voiilronrsii. fuUij 
 jiiHliJitd ill niiiiiitaiiiiiifi tliiit difrrtirc li'ifinliilioii iroiilil in :io <■««<■ esvinpt a luiitrnl hIhIi from 
 tlir oliliijiilioiiH iiiiiiiiKvd till iiilii iiiilioiiiil loir. 'I'liey were mistaken in sii|>)iositi;r ili:it tlu! 
 IjikHsIi ^roveriinient relied on tlh' nnsoiind ar};uiiieiit orinaltility todlNeliar^e its duties, 
 altlioii({li Iior<l ItiisNclI on several oeeasions showed that the Kiijjlish law was inoro 
 strin;;eitt than that ot" the I'nited States. //' In hail conli mini Iha' I'arlinmiiit hml not 
 iirinrd Ihr Crown irilh milJiriinl poirrri, Mr. .{iloiiis or his sinriHuirH miijht hori roin Insin ly 
 nhoirn that forcif/n Htatix hail notliiiuj to ilo irith tlir inUrnational lii/ixlalKni of luiiihinil. 
 
 8. l-'ven Lord Hns.sell is disposed to admit that there was a neoiji^ciM^e 
 in tlie (*aHe of the Alabama that entailed a liability for her act : 
 
 A\hal I shcMild cxteeni a reasonahle answer is one sn^;>;ested hy Mr. I'orsler, the 
 vice president oi llie eoiniiiittee of eoiineil on ediieat ion. 1 iindeistand hini lo say llntt 
 neither the secretary of stute tor foieijrn allaiis nor the law-olliceis were in fault, Init 
 theolhi'ial peisoiis en!|ilo.\ 'ij at I.,iver|iool were wantinjj; in due ilili).jence, and that thi.s 
 eonnlry iniKlit. in re|tiirali'ih of that neglect, ^raiit eonipeiisation lor the losses jneiiried 
 li.\ nierrhanls III conNeiiiieiice of eaptiiies made hy the Aluhaiim. It appeareil to me 
 tha! ;, if the ollleeis tif ihe i Us toll's Well' misled i>r lilinded liy the j;eiieial paitialily to I ho 
 cMUse of I he Sinitl' known to pr''\ .ill at \a\i t\f«>\. and that a iirinui fm ii case of ney;li- 
 ^i-nee conld lie n. iiii> oiii <ire:it liritain iiii^ht fiiirly ^raiit a sum ei|ni\aleiit to tli" 
 anieiiiit .it UiHses siistaiiM <t hy the captiu'L'S of the AiiibiiniH. {Siitichi:n and l)iiipatilun of 
 iMit liitmitU, vol, % ij). 4->\*, ^(iO. 
 
 Mcnt do- 
 
VII-riAfMS OF HHITISH SMUFXTS AGAINST THE UNITKD 
 STATKS FOR LOSSKS AND IN.fl KIES "AIIISIN(i OUT OF ACTS 
 COMMITTFD DLUING TlIF RECENT CIVIL WAR IN THE LNFrEI) 
 STATES." 
 
 UifL' 
 
 Tlipso must bo oxamiiu'd upon priiutiplca nppli(5iibl«» to public w.w. 
 TIh» IJiitisli <;()vt'riiinoiit has n'co^jfiiizi'il the coiillict as wajjetl by one 
 actual ^^ovcnmuMit aj^'aiiist aiiotlior. Tli« SiipriMuc (Joint of ihc I'liitt'd 
 States, ill Maiiraii I's. liisuniiicw dunpaiiy, says: 
 
 Till' ('"iisfifiitidii of llm Iliiitfd StiitfH, wliicli is tlin fiiinljiiiKMital law <»f ouch iiiiil 
 nil of lIuMii, not only all'onlfii no coiintoiiiincti or authority for Mioso proi-tiiliiijLrs, 
 [lliosc of t\u\ ri'lii^ls,] liiit they wia'r, in ovrry part of them, in oxpn^Hs iliHrr^ai'il ami 
 violation of it, Still it (lannot ho *l<tnii><l that by tint us*; of thi-s«< nnlawfnl and uncon- 
 Htitiitional means a ^ovfrnnimt, in fact, was ('rfcti'il ;;n'ator in territory tlian many of 
 the ohl ;;nv('riimctits in Kuropo, complr^r in tlio or;;ani/.ation of all its parts, contain- 
 ing within its limits more than ekven millions of people, and of snlhcient resonrces 
 in men an<l monev' to carry on a civil war of nni'xampled dimensions; and dnriii;; all 
 wliii h lime the exeicise of many hellip'reiit ri;{hts were i ilher eonecMlt-d tr» it or were 
 nc(|nii'sced in l)y the unpreine f^overnmeiit : sncji us the treatment of captives, huth on 
 land and sea, as )>iisoners of war ; the exchan^iof prisomns; their vt-ssels caplnred 
 rccti;r|ii/,Ml as pri/.es of >var and dealt with ai'cordin;rly ; their property sel/.ed on land 
 referred to the judicial trihnnals for ad.imlieation ; their ]>orts l)Io(-ka<led, and the 
 blockade maintained by a snitahle forci^ and <lnly uutilied to neutral powers, thu same 
 us in opiMi and public war. (i! lyitllani, paije 14.) 
 
 1.— INJIRIKS 
 
 IM'I.ICTKIJ HV liVAW.L AlTllOUITIKS OK 
 
 1{i:i»i:ls. 
 
 BY PRIVATE 
 
 Tjord Stanley, aCtorwanl Earl Derby and inime minister of England, 
 in a debate on the all'airs of Greece, June 17, ISoO, said : 
 
 I do not nndersland that where, by no fault of n government, oll'enses are committed 
 niiainst foreigners, the jiovernmeni is bitnnd to indemnify tlniH(> foreiy;ners. The K''^- 
 crnmenl is lionud to alford its protection to foreijjners and to its own subjects alike, 
 bill Hrili^h siiltjects before now have been pilhiged in the Roman states and the Neapol- 
 itan states, and 1 ii. ter heard of any demand against the gMVurnmcnt of uither of 
 those states. ( llanHitrd, !W mrivii, foliinu' I! 1, ptujc I'Mh'u) 
 
 In fill tiler support of the j^eneral proposition that no {j<'vernnient is 
 responsible for iiijiries done to the iiihaliitaiits of the country, wiiether 
 eiti/.t'iis or foreigners, by rebels or hy ali«'ii enemies exercisiiief In the 
 l)articii!:ir h<-'ility or for ilie time beinj; superior force against such ;>()\ - 
 ernineiits. see lititln'ilbrd's Institutes, p. 50!); Vattel, book li, eh. <», .see. 
 
 7'5; IMiilliinores iiiiern;»tioiial Law, vol. 1, see. -18; Calvo Dere- 
 
 cho Intt rnational, toiii. 1, p. .'{.ST. 
 
 When there was a revolt at licyhorn, the town was taken l»y storm by an Austrian 
 corps, iietiim iis auxiliailes of the (ir.ind Duke of 'I'liscany. Aft«'r the town had been 
 t.tken, and \n hen resislam^e was over, s<»iiie of these Austrian troops plundered the 
 hoiisrs of certain Ibitish siilijeels. Auio.ig others, the hoiisi' of a Mr. Hall was forcUdy 
 onlered liy a detachmeiil, lieaded by an olheur, which remained in the house f )r 
 Bevi-ial hours, broiijrht inio the lnuis«> the wives of the soldiers, broke opeii and plun- 
 dered everylhinjj I'niiii the eellur to the (garret, ih-stroyed what they 'lid not take 
 ii\>.iy, cat lied away many of tl. thiiifrs in thf house, selling them to people at the 
 Miile, which was not far ot}'. and reluiiiiiijj; .afterwaril to take a«ay other cargoes. 
 This \\,is duiK at lln' hoii-»— of Mr. Hail, of a wi(h)w lady, and of other persons; each 
 ol those liDUSi'-. having. :i» a matter of precaution, beiui marked visibly <>u 'he <)iitsiih> 
 door as the ii'sidenc'-s ol Ibitish snbji'cis, under tint protection of the Hritish consiil. 
 It was foi these lof^eH that, upon legal udviuu, cumponsaliuu hail been demunded. 
 (llttHnind, 'Ad utritH, ml. IIIJ, ^». (iH.').) 
 
UNITKD 
 
 OF ACTS 
 
 lMTi:i) 
 
 »l)Iic war. 
 I'll l).v one 
 Uo UniUnl 
 
 if (liicli niul 
 Itroct't'iliii^s, 
 htr<^>;iir<l uikI 
 
 iiinl iitu'iMi- 
 liiiii niiiiiy ot' 
 
 tH, fiiiiiaiii- 
 iit rusoiici'i's 
 I iliii'iii;; all 
 o it or wmn 
 vtvs, hotli oil 
 ■Is captiU'iMl 
 i/i'<i on latiil 
 
 ll-ll, illlll tlio 
 
 iFH, the tHUlW 
 
 PKIVATt: 
 
 Eri^IiUUl, 
 
 committed 
 'I'lit* (;ov- 
 l)ji'('ts alikf, 
 till' Nfiijiol- 
 uf either of 
 
 rniiKMit is 
 wlu'tlicr 
 \iX ill tlu; 
 siicli {i'OV- 
 'll. ({, soc. 
 Ivo J)i're- 
 
 III AuHtriiin 
 
 II Illlll lllM'Il 
 
 iiili'ii'd till' 
 
 Nils loicililv 
 
 'loiHc t'cir 
 
 .iii:l plmi- 
 
 I not tiiki' 
 
 <0|>ll^ lit till' 
 
 rr I'iirjfoi'N. 
 •Hoiix ; i-acli 
 
 •111' Mlltsilll' 
 
 ish riilisill. 
 llclllUlltil'tl. 
 
 . -,,, 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 3G3 
 
 With ivft'ioiicc to tliis ufluir a corrospoinhMKni ensued, \vlii(!li is (Mted 
 ill detail in a note t<' (j(iillauinin\s edition of V'attei, ISti,), vol. 'J, p. V,K 
 It is believed that Jiis eorrespondence has never appeared in IOny:land. 
 Tile copy herewith snhmitted was translated from a Spaiiisli Ainei ican 
 puhlieation. {Torres Caicedo Union — Latino, Americana, pp. Mil, 348.) 
 
 [AuHtriun diHimtch.] 
 
 Tlif I'rhicr of Srhiriirhenhrrf) to Huron Ifoltvr, London, on Ihr (h'nutnd for inihniiiilication 
 uiiirh the ijornrnmcnl of Emjland makcn of Ihv ijovirnnivntH of Tn.iatny and .Suiilvx. 
 
 ViKNNA, .ii>rU H, H.-,0. 
 
 Wi' liave hi'cii infoi'iiifil witli ri'l'iTciico to tlicili'iiianil for imli'iiinHiration wliirli Enj^- 
 lunil iiiiiki'H ii;^aiiist Tn.iraiiy for tin- alli-yi'il ilaiiiaui'.s wliicli ImijjIi.hIi Niilijiits hail 
 Hiitl'i'i'i'il ill Lr^iiorii, ill coiisiMiui'iii'i' of the siipiirrs.sioii of the ii'volt whirh look i»lai'0 
 ill that city in May of IHl'.l. Surh ii '•hiim, from all points of view, i.s w( rthy the at- 
 tention of tint imperial ^rovernnieiit. In fart, the injuries whieh ^ave rooiii for this 
 i^laiiii are attrihiiieil to the troops of His Miijesty the l^mperor, whirh ai-teil as the 
 allies of the le<;itiniale movi ■rei'jii of 'I'liscaiiy. On the other hainl, iinlrpenilently of 
 tills eiriMiinstanec, it was natnral that Austria, iiniteil to 'I'liseanv l>y so many elose 
 ties, anil hy aneieiit anil mmlerii treaties, nIioiiIiI lenil, ami lemls, a itartiinlar interest 
 to wiiatever refers to that eoiintry. Finally, ami it is the point of most importanee, the 
 English pretensions teml to raise a i|iiestioii of primiple, the sulntion ot' .vhieh is of 
 the hi;;liest iiiipoi tame for the inilepemU'iice ami sei^iirity of all tliu Htiites wliii-h main- 
 tain tiieiiilly relations with (iermaiiy. 
 
 The ori;iiii of the elaim ;;oes haek to tlie perioil in whieh the eity of Eeirhitrn was in 
 full insiirreelioii a>;ainst the le;;itimate i^overnment. The Ansiriaii tiiio]is ealleil to 
 re-estal>lisli the anihority of the laws were reeeiveil at the eannon's mouth ; ami hrin;{ 
 upon them eoiitiiiiied Iroiii the wimlows until theiily was eaptiiieil. 
 
 Our soliliers foiiml themselves olili;ieil to enter hy foree into waiehoiises ami ilwell- 
 iiiffs in onler to ascertain if armeil men ami munitions of war were not therein eon- 
 eealeil. If, on such an oeeasion, ami in spite of the ilforts of our olHeers to priM-nt 
 ilisoi'iler, there was siieh ilisonler; ami if some artieles helon;;in;; to Entflishnieu were 
 ahslraeteil or ilestroyeil hyour soliliers, irritated i)y the (inht ami l»y a Mind and tena- 
 cious resistanee, is there eanse for siirprixe f On;;ht not that misfortune to he eouiiled 
 anion^ the fatal and inevitalile eonsei|ueni'es of war ! 
 
 It is under this point of view, sustained iiesides hy the prineiples of rij^ht ;jeiierally 
 reeo;;ni/,eil, that the ijioveriiinent of the (iranil i)nke hi;.s dei tared that he i- in it ohli^reil 
 to eonrede indemnilieatioil to those of lii.s siilijeels u ho have sntfered lossis in loiise- 
 • inenee of the stormiiii; of the eity of l,e;jhorn, when it was oldiu;id to surrender, after 
 ha\'in^; refiiKed jill eoneiliatory propositions. 
 
 In ii)nM'i|iienee, the government of the (■rand Ihike of TuseaiiN liikH ohjeited to treat 
 the Imij^IIsIi niore I'avoraldy than his own siiliji'cls. He has not tlioni^lii it to lie a 
 duty to pliiee the En<;lish .sulijeets in a mole ad\ aiitai;eous pii>,itii>ii, lis p.iyinnlhein 
 in eliaraeter of indemnity sums whieh are not paid to Tiisean snlijeets ; the more so, iii- 
 aKiniieli as if the foreiirners had idaeed their persons and inojici'iy in seennty, they 
 would have hi.eii ahle to eseape with ease the general niisfoi tiiiirs to whieh the inliuh- 
 itantsofa hesie^ed eity must Hiihmit Iheniselves. 
 
 These reations, whieh the 'i'lisean ;roveriiment has opposed to the demands of IjoI'iI 
 I'aliiiei'stoii, apjiear to uh I'oiinded upon prineiples so lii^h and so iim|Uestioinilde, that 
 with regret we have seen his exeelleiicy persist in sueli preteiisioiiH, notwitliHtandintj 
 the Weight of those reiisons. 
 
 So far from desist iiij;;, the English emhasfador reeeive.s orders to jtersist eiieruetie- 
 ally,aiid to eaiise to he understood that if the elaims were im iidmiited liy the TiiHiaii 
 jfovernmenf, Enj;laiid would bo luulcr the necessity of enfonin^ thuni by adoptiiiy er- 
 er);etie means. 
 
 My ad\ iie of the EiikHsIi eiiihassador in Florence, Tuscany proposed to submit the 
 nialter to the arbitrament of ii third jiower. Fven though a mode of proeediire had 
 \>een adopted in this i|uestion wliieb would have permitted a paeilic solution, we ean- 
 not coiieeal that, in the presenee of other analonous acts more recent and y;em'rally 
 known, the citejrorical lan^iiUKe of the English cabinet drmrriH toallnut lln ultttilion of 
 ihoHf nliiliH whirh hitvi- him in thv huhil of ijwinij ii hotpilahli' fiir/ilion In Eni/lish xnhjrch. 
 
 However dixjioscd the ririli^rd iwojdf of Enropc mnij /«• lo vsimnd Ihr limilx of thr ri(jhl of 
 hoMfntnlilii, thiy will nrrrr do ho lo Ihr rrlrnt of orrording lo forriijnrr^ o nuirr faroruhic 
 IrrohnrnI Ihun Ihul whirh Ihr lawn of Ihr ronnlrij iinsnrr lo nnlirrs. To place in I'loubl tlUH 
 
 ■■■1 
 
 i 
 
3G4 
 
 OKNERAL APPKNDIX. 
 
 
 jMinriplc of ))ulilic rijjht, wliicli we arc rcsolvt-il to maintain linn and nnclian}jfal>lt<, 
 ami to claim tor Kiit^liHl'ini'ii rHtalilisliol in a lorri^rn connti'.v an r\r(>|)tional position, 
 wonid III- to foicc. so to say, tlio otln r Htati's to placn tlit-msclvcs on jjnani against lln^ 
 ••oii.sc(inrnct<8 of a pifti'iisioii ho contraiy to their imlfpcnfltMuc, ln-t.-ansf tlu-y wonlil 
 im|>om>, even i»y lurt'o, other conditions upon the Enylisii HultJi-ctH wlioiu they constmt 
 to riM't'ivc. 
 
 We wonid certainly lie tli'* tlrst to adopt tliat necessary measnre, wliicli, it is noces- 
 Hary to conlcHs, wonid form a notalile contrast to tiie tendency of onr (^[hicIi to ninlti- 
 \)\y and activate tiie (;ounue!eiitl nHtttions hetween peopie.s, and to IcsstMi the distance 
 wiiieii separates tin-ni. 
 
 Let this lie as it nniy, tin* first rij;ht of an iinlependent static is to insnn* its self-pres- 
 orvation hy all the nn-ans in its power. From the time that a sovereii^n, availing him- 
 Helf of his rijjht, (inds himself olili^red to havt^ reconi-se to arms to suppress an ih««cc«c- 
 lion, ami (htit in the civil war irhicli riMiilln thv pmiurttj uf forniinvrn eMlahlinhrH in Ibf conn- 
 tri) in in iifi/Htrdji, in tint rit-ir il in a inihlic mixfortinn; ivliirh /iiirii/nfrH hIiouIiI niiffir ax ivill 
 an nalirix,Hii(l wliivli dorn not fulHlv Ihvm In vxirpliitnal in<lnnnily, as they neither wonid 
 have that ri^ht if any other calnmity shmild happen proceeding; from the will of men. 
 
 Sncli is, in its most simple expression, the (piestioitahle point Hii^;;esteil to the Tnscan 
 government. We are impressi-(l with the gravity ot tlu^ consei[nences which proceed 
 from the iinestiiMi of knowing if tho jninciple treated (d' onght or onglit not to be re- 
 Hpe«-ted ; and for this reason we oliey the iie(;essity of snhmitting it in the most frank 
 manner to the examination of tlu; Mritish goverinm^nt. it Itelongs to it to weigh tho 
 tpiestion in its great wisdom and eqnity,and this will lea«l, as we hope, to a qnick and 
 Hatistaidory sohilion of the ipiestion which is being discussed. 
 
 Von aie charged to road Huh dittputch to the iiiinistur uf tbreign relationnuf (ireat 
 liritain. 
 
 SCHWAUTZHXHKlUi. 
 
 (Se« Torre* Cuic€do,p. IMU.) 
 
 ]'■ ' 
 
 If 
 
 i:i 
 
 
 Pi 
 
 
 DiMpalih from the Count of XinHilrnih' to Baron liriinow. 
 
 Saint 1'kti;i{siu luiii, Mui/ 2, l^.'O. 
 
 The cabinet of Saint I'elerslmrgh adlu-res oomidetely to the principles which have 
 8ervc<l as the basis to the demand of the <-aliinet of \'ienna. Knssia is too mnch in- 
 tcr4-sted in tht^ mainteiianciMif the independence (d' the secondary states and in the 
 repose ot° Italy, and for this reason canind Imt associate itstdf in this case with the 
 Hontiments and politi<-al views of Anstria. 
 
 According to the rnlesof pnblic right, snch a.s they are underHtood by Unssian policy, 
 it cannot be admitted that n sovereign, oblige d, as was the (Srand Ibiketd" 'rnscany, 
 /((/ ilir ohsliiiarii nf bin rrhillioHM nihjriiH to rvlukr a rilij ovrnptal ft./ the insiiriji'nln, slimilil In' 
 ohiiijai III iniliiiinifii foriiijn HnlijritH who may hare nnlfvnd damaijii* in vonHviimnw of the 
 aHstiull nndtrliikin oi/aiii*! thai citi/. 
 
 HliiN a (wrmni inyUtlli himxilf in a nunilrn other than hix own, hv arrrfilx Ihr })iixnitiililii of 
 all Ihf dnni/rrx to irhirh hi' maif Iw ixpoxid in that ronntrii. Fjcghorn revolteil ; it was m'ces- 
 Hary to employ arms to reduce it. ,<iinn' l''.nglish proprietors ha-'e participated in the 
 damages experienced by lln> native lUMpiietors. Why shonld tln-v ahnie have the right 
 to be indemtiilicd for their losses, when the Tnscan gov(-rnnu-nt does not indemnify its 
 own snbjecls f 
 
 These reasons are «o clear, tlnit Tnscniiy, Iniving applied to the Eniperm, iisking his 
 arbitrament, tlw I'miieror, notwithstanding the lively inten^st which he has tor Tus- 
 cany, has not been able fo accede to its desire. It is not a question of lignres. more or 
 less in ai int, which is treated of, but of a principle, which his imperial .M.i.j.sty can- 
 not admit — that is to say, the prin<'i{d(Md' any indemnification whatever claimed as a 
 legit iiiialc light, mindi less when it is sought to exact il by force. It would have aji- 
 ])eared that he im|dieitly sanctioned it had he (dfered his arintration to tho two parties, 
 supposing Kiigland had consenied to adopt the expedient. 
 
 As Tuscany is disposed to lender conciliatory explanatiinis, it ('oiild not enter into the 
 intentions ol' the Knssian government to tlissnade it from a friendly arrangement with 
 the ICnglisli government. Ibit the ICinperor hopes, frimi the justice and moderation of 
 the Knglish government itself, that it will not, to obtain it, employ other than coinil- 
 iatory iiK-ans also; and tlii< imperial cabinet ought, in so much as it is concerned, at 
 once to make its reservations as to ;ill that which it considers a.s in small confmniity 
 with the r gni/.ed maxims of the law of nations. 
 
 Till' cabinet id London ought t<» nii>iini:r that onr of Ihr yrarcnf qiir$tionx for thv indt- 
 Itvndinir of all ilir xtatix of thr ronlinint ix Iwinij Iriatid nf In etieel, if what Liigland 
 attempts to establish at this moment witJi respect to Naples and Tuscany should come 
 to be atlmitted tw a precedent, it would reHtilt in placing British subjects abroad in an 
 
iiul piisitioii, 
 iy^iiiiisl till' 
 tlu-y would 
 
 tht-y ('oiist'iit 
 
 1, it is iicccs- 
 ich to iiiiilli- 
 tlio ilistiinc.u 
 
 itsscll'iin's- 
 ivailiiiK liiiii- 
 s an iuMiirriT- 
 H in Ibi- ciinn- 
 
 miff'ir 111 irill 
 K'iilicr woiilil 
 I will of iiu'ii. 
 ti»tluiTusi'an 
 hicli procci'tl 
 
 not to ht! rt!- 
 itt most tVaiik 
 
 to wtiyli tlitt 
 i> a tiiiii-k and 
 
 tionnuf (jreat 
 
 y.KNHKUG. 
 
 Man 'i, l«.')0. 
 s which havo 
 too niiK'li in- 
 and in the 
 sd with till! 
 
 issian policy, 
 
 of Tuscany, 
 
 rii/n, hIidiiIiI In' 
 
 K/i/cHcr of Ihv 
 
 ■ pilXHUlililjl of 
 
 it was ncccs- 
 i|):itcil in tlic 
 avc the ri^ht 
 indemnify its 
 
 1. askinu his 
 has hn- Tiis- 
 
 fiiii's, nioi'c of 
 Majesty can- 
 •lainii'il as a 
 
 luld have n\>- 
 two patties, 
 
 •nter into the 
 iHeineiit with 
 iioderation of 
 i- than eoneil- 
 I'oiH'erned, at 
 11 eoiiforniily 
 
 H far llif inili- 
 hat Hne;land 
 should ciune 
 uhruud ill an 
 
 GENEUAL ATJ'ENDIX. 
 
 .^G5 
 
 pxrcpti(Uial position, very superior to tho advanta;;es i-njoycd hy the inliahitants of tins 
 other countries, and a situation intolcrahle for the ;rovei'ninents who i-eceisi- them. 
 
 Instead of heinji, as up to tlio present time, a heiielit to the countries where they 
 estalilish themsidves, .md to which they hriiij,', with their wealth and industrial re- 
 sources, the haliils of I'lorality and oidiu' which so hoiiora)dy distin;;uish the ICn^jlisli 
 ]ieople, their presence would he a perpetual inconvenience, and, in certain cases, a real 
 altliction. 'I'heir piesence would l>e, (or tln> promoters of insurre<'tions, a stimulant to 
 revolt, hecause, if Itehiud the harricades thi>re should he conliniially raised the threat- 
 ening; eventuality of future reclamations in f.ivor ni' l''.u<;lish siihjects who may havo 
 received injury in their property hy the suppression, all soverei;^iis, whom their ptisi- 
 ti<uis and respective weakness eX]>ose to the coercive ineasurcs id an Kii<;li-ih licet, 
 would lieeome powerless ill tho presenci' cd" an insurrection; they could not dure to uso 
 coercivtf me.ins, and if they used them, would have to examine the details of the ope- 
 ration, estimate the necessity or uselessiiess cd" this or that sfrate;^i(! measure, which 
 mi;;lit expose the Kn<r|ish to sull'er losses; they would have, tiiially, to recoH;ni:'.e thu 
 l'!u;;llsh j^overnment as Jiidyo hetweeii Noveroij^ii and stihject in matters of civil war 
 and ot' interior KovcriiiniMit. 
 
 riii> Emperor cannot, tli(*n, Huhscriho to hiiuIi a theory. |[u will iievi>r compromise in 
 the matter of the prineiples which \n' hasjiistsel forih. I''or, \vvy much disposed as ho 
 may he, and as he always has hecii, to receive with henevoleiice individuals heloiij;in;; 
 to the Itritish nation, his esteem for whose (diaracter is known, if (daims like those 
 whiidi have heeii made ai^aiiist Najdes and 'ruscmy may he sustained hy force, ho 
 wimid l)e under the necessity of examinin;; ami id' tixiii;; in a more formal way the (roii- 
 ditions upon wlii(di he will lieiicid'orlh eonsiMit to allow to British siilijiM'ts i lu; ri^^ht of 
 residence and of property in his states. 
 
 The K'ussian ;;overiinient ho|)esthat the I'^ajjlish cahinet will accept these retlections 
 in the impartial s|drit in wliitdi they have heen dictated, and th.it it will not losesi;rht 
 of them III the course which it may adopt with respect to Naples and 'I'uscany. The 
 <.'«««(' iif tliixf in thai of all a-rak atalfs n-hina' rsislciirc is ijaiiranlii il alone hij Ihv maiitU nance 
 of lh( tnhlar prinriiihn n'hich han- jn^l hnn inrohal. At the |ircseiit moment, more I hail 
 ever, the resp«'cl of these principles hy the <;reat powers aloiii- can preserve Ijirupe 
 from the greatest disturhances. ' 
 
 Voii will coinmunicatu to i>ord l'uliiiur8toii this dispatuli, and you will ;;ivti him a 
 co|iv of the same. 
 
 NESSELKODE. 
 
 (See Tones Caicedo, p. :M8.) 
 
 Tilt' IJiiittMl Stiiti'.s followcil tlii'soi i)ro(MMl(Mits wlieu (IccliiiiiiiL,', in iSrtG, 
 till' r«'<|iii>st> of our citi/ciis tliat wo. slioiild a.sk iiidtMiiiiitii's for their 
 lo.ssc.-H susraiiu'd in titti Itoiiilcu'diiuMit of Valparaiso. Sec opinion oi" 
 Attorn«\v-(M't('ial Stanlicry, (lU Opiii., \MiH' 21.) Sct^ also (Mnrcspontl- 
 viu-i" l)('t\v«'«'ii .Ml'. Si'iMt'taiy Miiicy and tlie Count de ►Sartij^t^s. (A'./'. 
 Ihc. Xo. !», *Vt'«(j/r, ii'fth Conijrcss, 1st .srssioii.) 
 
 :i.— CAI'TIKES HY EEDEHAL CUKISEHS. 
 
 Tho rnU» on this snhjcct was laid tlmvn, in tonns whiirli liavo Ih'coiuo 
 elas.sical aii'J aturi'pti'd as the staiidaid authority in all Europe, by Lord 
 Manstietd, in the ineiiioir on the Silesian loan : 
 
 The law of nations, foiinde(l upon Justice, e(|uity, coiiveniencr, and the reason of 
 the thiny;. and coiilirined hy lony; usay;e, does md allow of re|>risals except in case of 
 viideiit injuries direeied or siipporleil hy the state, or Justice aluolutely denied in re 
 inininie (Inbia hy all tin- I rihunals, anil afterward l»y the ju'luce. Where the Judges are 
 left free, and i^ive sentence aecordinj^ to their cnuseieiu'e, t hoiiirh it should he erro- 
 neous, that would he no ^rroiind for reprisals. Upon doul>iful (lUestions. dilferent m -n 
 think and Jad^t^ diltereiitly; and all a foreigner can desire is, that Justice should ho 
 im|iaitially administured to him, as it is to the siihjects of that prince in whose coiirt.s 
 the matter is tried. 
 
 Thsit our adinirality courts had idl the intolli<;ence and impartiality 
 that (Mil he retpiired was repeatedly admitted by leading" memhers ot 
 I he. Ilrilish {;()\'ernment during; tho rebellion. Tin? tollovviii},^ extiaets 
 iwo selei'ted lor the reasou that tho speeches from which they are taken 
 were made tit ii late period of the war, iind jifter ti very jireat number ot 
 atljiidieatioiis had beuu nuide, and had become known to the liritlsh 
 {govern uieut. 
 
 r-i 
 
:^GG 
 
 GKNKUAL API'ENDIX. 
 
 ^§. 
 
 ' 
 
 
 k 
 
 
 »1' 
 
 !l!^ 
 
 On tlic ILMIi Fobniary, 1804, in reply to Hfiictiiros on sonio dt'cisions 
 in prizf r;is»'s, tlio sittorneygeneisil, Sir Koundcll I'aliner, said, in tlio 
 House ot'l^oniinonH: 
 
 I'IkmikIi ill tliK jinl|;iii(>iitN of tin* riiiti'il ShitcH pii/c-roiirt tln're may Ito paNsnut's 
 open to rriticiNiii iipo i iiiiiltiTs of IckuI tln-nry, aixl alMniii;>li I am tar tVoni sayin;; tliaf. 
 tlii-y liavi- always appllnl llii' priiiciplcH nt' law corrci'tly to tli*- tacts <it' tlir vtisv, yet ] 
 am mil awan- nf one hiii^lt- (li-iiNic ii promtiiiiccil ilii:iii;> tlic war in any onr i>t° tliosc 
 coiii'ts wliicli <lii«'H not Itrar iipoii iIh< faci' of it Nijrns nl' an lioiu-Ht intnitioii to adiiiiii- 
 iHtiT till' law as rrccivcil in tin- I 'nitcil States ; and tlic caM- of tlic Spring! oi< is no i-x- 
 ccptioii to that lull*. In all tlit^ tliifi- poiiitN to w Inch my iioiioialilt- tiicnil lias n lined, 
 wlirilicr or n<» the itnnciplcs wrrc ri;;litly applied to the tacts an<l evidence, the de- 
 cision come to was based on principles, lie they lijrlit or ho tliey wroiin, which wero 
 principles of our own pri/c-cotirtH in thu war with l<'rancu. 
 
 In the Huino debate Lord I'rtlinerston said : 
 
 I think it ri>jht, however, to state, with repnd to the Oovernmont of the I'liitcd 
 States, what has indeed heeii already stated hy my lionoraldtt and learned tiieixl, the 
 atloiiii'V };iMieral, that we have no reason t*i inintriist the eipiity and independence of 
 the triliniials of the Cnited States \\hi<'h have to try i|nestions such as those now 
 under discussion ; and if is Imt din^o fln^ (Jovernment td" the I'niied Stales to say 
 that thi'.\' have invariahly received oiir representations in a spirit of respect, erpiiiy, 
 und .justice. And in proof of this, to show that, when we had a stron;;; case of remon- 
 Nlraiicc, jiisliec has heeii done to ns hy the I'liited States, I need only refer to the case 
 of the Trent, in which the (ioveinnieiit of th*^ I'liitcd States very handsomely and 
 pro|ierly did Justice to the demands we made, and the ri):;lits they did not deny. 
 Therefore, I tliink it Ih prejudicial to the <rood nnderstandiii;^ lielweciithe two gov- 
 ernments, which are on nood terms, that we should here accuse a forei;rn ;j;overiiincnl 
 of that of w liicli it is not ^uiity, and express mistrust of tliiir e< pi it y and fairness when 
 nothing lias occurred to Justify IIS in mal<in<; these impiilations. I think it only i'i;;lit, 
 in re;r;iii| to the trilinuals and (ioveriimeut of the I'liited Slates, to declare that such 
 uccusatioiiH arc not Just, and that nothing Iiiih occurred to warrant tliuiii. 
 
 Tlie coiilidence of eacli of tlie two ;i;overiim«'nts in tiie intt'.urity iuid 
 ability of the prize-courts of tiie otlier lias, siiiee all the tiiuisactioiis 
 \vhi<'h can eoiiie iiiider examination by the hijjh eotnmission, bi-eii 
 eviiM'cd by an act witiiont parallel in diplomatic history. 
 
 The additional coii\cntion in relation to the slave-trade, concluded 
 June .J, 1S7U, provides: 
 
 AllTICUC III. 
 
 
 iilli 
 
 f: 
 
 ■I 
 
 lit 
 
 r 
 
 m 
 
 M . 
 
 I iMtcd states cruiser, it one should lie availaole m the neijfliliorhood ot the capture; 
 ami that in the correspondiii<r ease of a Mritish mcreliant vessel, searched hy a rnilcd 
 States cruiser, lieiii<; detained as having lieeii en^a;;ed in the .\frican slave-trade, or 
 a.s hiiviii;; liecn lit ted out for the pur|ioses thereof, she shall he sent for adjudication 
 to the nearest or inont accessilde I'.iilish etdmiy, or shall he handed over to a ISiitisli 
 cruiser, if one Hhould li(« availahle in tho neighborhood of thu capture. 
 
 Tender this provision, (Ireat Britain submits to the adjtulication of 
 our courts the valitlity of (^ajitures made by her own cruisers, and it re- 
 sidts from this and from the lifth arti(de of the orijuinal treaty, (lli ISfaf., 
 lli.JL*,) that if an American court pronounces af^ainst the capture of an 
 American vessel by a liritish cruiser, and awards restitution with dain- 
 ajjes, the British government stands engaged to pay such damages 
 within one year. 
 
 4.— TRKATMKNT OF HUITISII SITRJECTS AS TO PERSOXAL KinHTS-AUIlI- 
 TUAKY AUUESTS-COMl'ULSORV MILITARY SERVICE, ETC. 
 
 This head of possible inquiry by tlie high commission is treated with 
 such general candor and fairness by Professor Mountague Bernard, in 
 
? (It'cisioHS 
 laid, ill till' 
 
 y I"' passnijos 
 II hiiyiii;; tliat 
 III' riisf, yi't 1 
 
 (MIC of lIlllHI- 
 
 ion to ii<liiiiii- 
 i>l'ok is no fx- 
 1 lias nil rnil, 
 
 U'llCf, llli- ilc- 
 
 ;, wliirli wiTo 
 
 i.f tlio Uiiit.'il 
 i-il iVii'iiil, till' 
 
 l('|lllllllllt0 of 
 
 as iliosi' now 
 States to say 
 •Hi>i'('t , ri|iiiiy, 
 rasi' of ri'iiioii- 
 liT to the case 
 MKlsoiMi'ly anil 
 iliil not ilrny. 
 till' two nov- 
 
 ;il n;(|\ rrnilll'lll 
 
 fairness wlieii 
 k it only rinlit, 
 hire lliat siieli 
 
 itt'.u'rity inul 
 tiiiiisactioiis 
 issioii, bt'iMi 
 
 coiicliuk'il 
 
 by a nrilifli 
 
 , or as liaviii^; 
 
 or Key West, 
 
 leil over to ;i 
 
 tlie caittiire; 
 
 by a I'nited 
 
 nlave-traile, or 
 
 ailjiiilii'alioii 
 
 to 11 Hvitish 
 
 ulication of 
 s, ami it ri'- 
 ,v, (12 ^7(f^, 
 )tnr(' of an 
 I with (lain- 
 !li dainaj^es 
 
 ;hts-akbi- 
 ;tc. 
 
 reattMl with 
 Buruard, iu 
 
 GEN'EKAL APPENDIX. 
 
 307 
 
 Chap. XAT of his " Xi'iitiality of (iit'iit Hiltaiii diiriii}; tlir Ainciican 
 Civil War,'' and in Mr. AWIiott's iiit'inoiandiiin, appt'iidrd to the ii'poit 
 of the IW'itish roiiiiiiissioncrs on tint laws of natinalixatioii and allc^'i- 
 aiK'c, from which I'roft'ssor Itcrnard niakcs considctalih^ citation, that 
 it scciiis iiiint>(;c.ssa.y to do more than refer the lii;;h coininission to those 
 l»apcrs. 
 
 it may he eonvenient, how«'ver, tt) furnish references to some of tlie 
 anthoi'itics which estiil>lisli the liahility of p(>rsons domiciled, for c<»in- 
 inercial purposes, in a hellioemit re;;ion to he treated as iiidisiliionish- 
 ahle li'om the active enemies, in the midst ol whom tliey are tniiiid. 
 
 Professor Ahdy's etlition of Kent on Internatioiiid Law, »hap. v., be- 
 in;; section iv of Keiil's Commentaries, vol. 1, pa^^'c 7."*, tt .sr*/., of orioi- 
 iial pagination; NVildinan Inter, liaw, vol. L', paj^e lit and pa;:e 7S; 
 riiillimore, vol. 3, paye lliS; Calvo, tome 1, pay;e L'JL' ; The i'i/airo, 
 ('J Wheaton, I'UI;) Laurent's (tase, joint eoiirnission under treaty of 
 18.k{, between the L'nited States and (Iruat iiritaiii, paj^e IJO vt mq. 
 
 Since these instructions were <;iven a HrKish blue-book, relatin;; to 
 the "Claims «)t IJritish sul>jectsa;;ainst tlu^ L'nited States tiovernmcut, 
 I'loin the ('ommenccment of tlie civil war to tiie .{(Mh of Miircli, l.Stlt," 
 which liatl bt'cn lepiinted in the diplomatic correspondi'iicc, sulMiiitted 
 to Con^^ress in tin- year istil,' (Diplomatic ctu'respondeiice, l.stit, pii't 
 1, paof T.'ili,) has been repriiite«l in ou(> of the leading; Journals of the 
 country, with a view undoubtedly of enaldino^ the pulilic to see that 
 most ol the claims th'scribed in it have been disp<»se(l of. 
 
 An analysis of that document shows the followino; r»'siilts: 
 
 Three liundK'd and twenty-one cases of the lour hundred and fifty 
 therein enumerated have been disposed of. 
 
 Of these forty-three were eases in which the Ilritish j;oveiiiment re- 
 fused lo interfere, on tlu* ailvice of the law olhceis of tlu' Crown. 
 
 OiM' humlred and sixty-seven cases have been i'ondemnetl by the i)rize- 
 coiirts of the United States. With the exce|»iion (»f (Uie case, that «d' 
 the Springbok, the ])e|)artiiient ol State is not aware of a tlispusition on 
 the part of the Hritish government to dissent to any linal adjudication 
 of tin' Supreme Ciuirt of the Cnited States in a |Mi/,e-«'asc. The Su- 
 ]ii'eme Court has in several cases reversed condemnations made by the 
 inferior tribunals of prizes, in some ol which Con;;ress has made appro- 
 ])iiations for the iii<lemnilication of the owners of the property cai>- 
 tiired. 
 
 In most of the ciises where it is stated that vessels have Ix-eii con- 
 demned, but that appeals arc pendin;;^, the condeinnations by the courts 
 below have been Hustained. 
 
 In sixty-threc! cases it ajipears that i»roperty taken by the Cnitetl 
 States has been restored, and that pt'isiuis imiuisoned, or slid to have 
 been illegally enlisted, have been releaseil. 
 
 While th^'. «;onfereiiees were bein^jf held iu Washin;^ton, a correspond- 
 ence was ^f'li.!-; on in Eiif^land betwe»'ii the foreiy;n oilice and Hritish 
 subjects 1 sidii ^^ in France, and preferring claims for the loss of prop- 
 erty since (he 'Mitry of the (rcrmaii army into France. A portion of 
 this (Hirrespenik'nce has been published in lilue-IJook No. 4, for 1.S7I, 
 Franco Gi!ruiau War. Tlie fidlowing letters from this publication bear 
 directly rpon the (|uestiuns considered iu this portion of the "conlidcu- 
 tial memurauduui." 
 
 m 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 k 
 
 // 
 
 O 
 
 4r 
 
 
 if? 
 
 
 {/.. 
 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 "- ilia 
 
 m. IM 
 
 2.5 
 
 22 
 
 1.8 
 
 U II! 1.6 
 
 V] 
 
 <p 
 
 XF' 
 
 />i 
 
 ■c-J 
 
 
 '/ 
 
 /A 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sdences 
 Corporation 
 
 73 ' VEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WeBSTER, NY. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-455 3 
 

 s 
 
 i/.A 
 
368 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 I" 
 
 Ko. 3. 
 
 Uarl Granville to Lord Lyons. 
 
 Foreign Office, January 11, 1871. 
 My Lord : I have received yonr excellency's (lispatch of the 6th in- 
 stant, inclosing a letter from Mr. Kirby, an English gentleiniin, estab- 
 lished witii his family at La Ferle Inibanlt, complaining of the conduct 
 of the German troops in making requisitions on his property ; and I have 
 to instruct yon to acquaint that gentleman that much as Her Majesty's 
 government regret the inconvenience and loss to which he ami his 
 family were exposed, it is out of their power to interfere to obtain any 
 redress for him, inasmuch as foreigners residing in a country whicii is 
 the seat of war are equally liable with the natives of this country to have 
 requisitions levied on their property by the belligerents. 
 I am, &c., 
 
 GKANVILLE. 
 
 No. 10. 
 
 Uarl Qranville to Mr. West. 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 it ■ 
 w 
 
 Foreign Office, March 1, 1871. 
 Sir: I have consulted the law-officers of the Crown upon the point 
 submitted to me in your dispatch of the 24th February, as to the claims 
 of British subjects to be indemnified for the loss of property during the 
 war; and I have now to acquaint you that I am advised by them that 
 Her Msijesty's subjects resident in France, whose proi)erty has been 
 destroyed during the war, cannot expect to be compensated, on the 
 ground of their being British subjects, for losses which the necessities 
 of war have brought upon tliem in common with French subjects. 
 I am, &c., 
 
 GKANVILLE. 
 
 U 
 
 Foreign Office, March 28, 1871. 
 
 Sir: I am directed by Earl Granville to acknowledge the receipt of 
 your letter of the 22d instant, containing a statement of certain property 
 possessed l)y you in Paris and the neighborhood, and referring to the 
 losses which you state you have sustained in consequence of the occu- 
 pation of such property by French and German troops, and requesting 
 that your interests may be placed under the protection of Lord Lyons, 
 with the object of your claim being ultimately urged upon Ihe French 
 government on account of such losses and dilajndations. 
 
 I am now to inform you that Lord Granville has taken the opinion of 
 the law-otticers of the Crown as to the liability of the French govern- 
 ment to compensate British subjects resident in France for loss and 
 damage to their property during the late war, an.! that his lordship 
 has been advised by them that the British subjects re^sident in France 
 would have, in their opinion, no just ground of complaint against the 
 French authorities in the event of their property having been destroyed 
 by the invading armies ; their losses under such circumstances would 
 be among the inevitable consequences of war raging in a state within 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 369 
 
 which they have chosen, as foreijjners, to take up their residence; and 
 with reyard to siidi h)sses Britislj subjects wouM not be entitled to 
 claim any compensation from the French authorities. 
 I am, &c., 
 
 E. HAMMOND. 
 
 No. 21 
 
 Mr. Stewart to Earl GronvUle. — {Receired August 31.) 
 
 33 Upper Brunswick Plate, 
 
 Brighton, March 30, l.SJl. 
 
 My Lord : I have the honor to acknowledfje your lordshii)'s letter 
 of the 2<Sth instant, in answer to mine of the 22d, on the sul)je(!t of the 
 losses [ have sustained by the occupation of my houses in I'aris and its 
 neighborhood by French troops <luring the late war, informing me that 
 your lordshi[) had taken the opinion of tlie law-othcers of the Crown as 
 to the liability of tiie French government to compensate British subjects 
 resident in France for loss an<l damage to their ))roperty during the 
 late war ; and that your lordship had been advised by them that 
 British subjects resident in France would have, in their opinion, no 
 just ground of complaint against the French authorities in the event of 
 their property having been destroyed by the invading armies. 
 
 I beg to submit to your lordship that my case does not come within 
 the terms of the one submitted to the law-ofticers of the Crown. At 
 the commencement of tlie siege of Paris all the inhabitants of Boulogne- 
 surSeiiu", were ordered by the Fretuih governnient to leave their houses, 
 and my tenant at No. .5 Avenue des Princes, Boulogne sur Seine, ac(!or(l- 
 iiigly removed his furniture and gave up posses.sion to the authorities, 
 who occupied the premises for more than live months, with ui)\vard of 
 150 French soldiers, who remained in it until the signature of the treaty 
 of peace, an«l then left it in tiie most ruinous conditon. Tiie (lermau 
 troops passed one night on the [>remises after the temporary occupation 
 of Paris, but did no additional damage to the property. My other houses 
 within the enceinte of Paris were occupied wholly by F.encii troops and 
 French peasants. '-No destruction of propeity b^' invading armies" con- 
 sequently took place in my case. 
 
 In my op:nion, my claim is similar to that made by your lordship on 
 the German Government for the loss sustained by British shipowners 
 whose vesvsels were seized ami sunk near Rouen. In the one case ships 
 were seized and destroyed by the German atithorities; and, in the other, 
 houses were seized and destroyed by the French authorities, both bo«- 
 longing to British subjects, and demanding similar compensation. 
 
 I have iu>w, therefore, to beg that your lordshi}* will be so good as to 
 forwanl niy claim on the French government to Lord Lyons, with a 
 request that his excellency will give me such assistatu'e as may be 
 required in his capacity of English ambassador, in order to iruluce the 
 French government to entertain my claim when the proper tinu^ shall 
 arrive for submitting it to the authorities. I beg, however, to add that 
 I am informed that, by the law of France, compensation is due not oidy 
 to foreigners, but to French subje<!ts for injury doim to their property 
 by invading armies, and for the occupation of their houses by French 
 troops, and for damages resulting therefrom. I trust, therefore, that it 
 will not be necessary to call for 'jord Lyons's intervention. 
 
 1 have thought it my duty to trouble your lordship with this letter, 
 
 24 H 
 
370 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 in order that T may point out thfi differonce between my case and that 
 submitted to the hiw-ofiicers of the Crown, and I may add that I think 
 it will be fonnd tliat few Britisli subjeets are iu the same position as I 
 am with respeet to n)y French property. 
 1 have, &c., ' 
 
 ClIAS. STEWART. 
 
 
 I'^i'- 
 
 iS'^ 
 
 «a' 
 
 I 
 
 ' -. i 
 
 ti.i. 
 
 No. 23. 
 Viscotint Enfield to Mr. Stewart. 
 
 Foreign Office, April 13, 1871. 
 
 Sir: I am directed by Earl Granville to acknowledge the receipt of 
 your letter of the 30th ultimo, in which, with reference to the answer 
 whi(rh Lord Granville caused to be returned to your letter of the 2LM of 
 March, respecting the losses which you state you have sustained by the 
 occupation of your houses in Paris and the neighborhood by French 
 troops during the war, you now submit that your case does not come 
 within the terms of that which had been submitted to the law-oflicers 
 of the Crown, and upon whose opinion witli reference thereto the 
 answer to your representation had been founded, inasmuch as there 
 was "no destruction of property by invading armies,'' but that the dam- 
 age was caused in conse«pience of the occupation of your property by 
 French troops, which property had been vacated by or<lersof the French 
 authorities themselves. 
 
 I am now to state to you that Lord Granville has taken the opinion 
 of the law-officers upon your further application, and 1 am to observe 
 that Her Majesty's subjects resident in France cannot of right claim to 
 be in a better position in respect to their immovable i)roperty in France 
 than French subjects, and that, if you have been correctly informed as 
 to the law of France, the intervention of Her Majesty's government 
 will not be required to enable you to prefer a claim before the French 
 authorities to compensation for any losses resulting to you from the oc- 
 cupation of your houses by French troops. But whether you have been 
 correctly infornied or not, Her Majesty's government cannot intervene, 
 if you receive at the hands of the French government the same treat- 
 ment which French subjects themselves recteive. 
 
 With regard to your allusion to the case of the British ships which 
 have sunk at Rouen, I am to observe that there is no analogy betweeu 
 ships and immovable jnoperty. 
 
 I am, &c., 
 
 ENFIELD. 
 
 Another pertinent case has recently been decided by the British gov- 
 ernment against a claimant. Mr. Worth, a British subject, claimed 
 indemnity on account of imprisonment to which he was subjected by 
 the German authorities ou his cai)ture, iu an attempt to escape froiu 
 Paris in a balloon. 
 
 Lord Enfield, in a note of the 3d of April, informs Mr. Worth that 
 LonI Granville regrets that, '''■after consultation with the proper laicad- 
 viser of the Crown, he does not feel jiifttified in placing such a claim on your 
 {Mr. Worthls) behalf before the German goDerament.'^ — Britinh Blue- Book, 
 1871; Correspondence respecting the imprisonment of Mr. Worth by the 
 rrussians. 
 
 IV.- 
 
^e and that 
 hat £ think 
 osition as I 
 
 EWART. 
 
 : 13, 1871. 
 
 e receipt of 
 the answer 
 r the 2LM of 
 ined by the 
 
 by French 
 3S not came 
 law-officers 
 thereto tlie 
 ih as there 
 at the dam- 
 [)ro|)erty by 
 
 the French 
 
 the opinion 
 to observe 
 ^lit claim to 
 y in France 
 nfornied as 
 government 
 the French 
 rom the oo- 
 i have been 
 t intervene, 
 same treat- 
 ships which 
 gy betweeu 
 
 S^FIELD. 
 
 IV.-LNSTRUCTIONS TO THE BRITISH COMMISSIONERS RE- 
 PRINTED FROM BLUE-BOOK, "NORTH ' 
 AMERICA, No. 3, (1871.)" 
 
 British gov- 
 ct, claimed 
 ibjectetl by 
 scape from 
 
 ^orth that 
 >l)er law-ad- 
 lim on yoiii' 
 Blue- Book, 
 orth by the 
 
St 
 
IV.-INSTRUCTIONS TO HER MAJESTY'S HIGH COMMISSIONERS. 
 
 No. 1. 
 Earl Granville to Her Majesty's High Commissioners. 
 
 Foreign Office, February 1), 1871. 
 
 My Lord and Gentlemen: The Queen luivirig been }?racioiisl.v 
 pleased to appoint you to be Her Majesty's high coininissioners to pro- 
 ceed to Wasliingtou for the purpose of discussing in a friendly spirit with 
 commissioners to be appointed by the Government of the United States 
 tlie various questions on which ditterences have arisen between Great 
 Britain and that country, and of treating; for an agreement as to the 
 mode of their amicable settlement, I inclose the necessary full powers, 
 and have the honor to convey to you the following instructions for your 
 guidance. 
 
 It is the earnest desire of Her Majesty's government that the import- 
 ant negotiation with which you are intrusted should be conducted in a 
 mutually conciliatory disposition, and with unreserved frankness in 
 your communications with the high commissioners or members of the 
 Government/ of the United States with whom you may be placed in 
 commnnication, and they believe that this object cannot be better 
 attained than by leaving you full discretion as to the manner in whicli 
 the subjects which may engage your attention shoidd be discussed. 
 
 The i)rin<'ipal subjects will probably be — 
 
 1. The fisheries. 
 
 2. The free navigation of the river St Lawrence and privilege of pass- 
 age through the Canadian canals. 
 
 3. The transit of goods through Maine, and lumber trade down the 
 river Saint John. 
 
 4. The Manitoba boundary. 
 
 5. The claims on account of the AJabama, Shenandoah, and certain 
 other cruisers of the so-styled Confederate States. 
 
 6. The San Juan water-boundary. 
 
 7. The claims of British sulyects arising out of the civil war. 
 
 8. The claims of the people of Canada on account of the Fenian 
 raids. 
 
 9. The revision of the rules of maritime neutrality. 
 
 Copies of all the correspondence which have been presented to Parlia 
 meut respecting these questions will be forwarded for your use. 
 
 1. The fisheries. 
 
 On the termination of the reciprocity treaty of the 5th of June, 1854, 
 by the United States Government, the discussions respecting the rights 
 of American fishermen under Article I of the convention of the 20th of 
 October, 1818, which had been set at rest by the reciprocity treaty, 
 were revived, and, although temporary measures were taken to avoid 
 pressing with severity upon American fishermen by the adoption of a 
 
374 
 
 GENERAL APPLNDIX. 
 
 [ ) \ t;'i ■ . 
 
 Mb'' 
 
 H 
 
 r 
 
 M 
 
 m 
 
 system of liconsos, it has boon foniul impracticable to continue tliHt 
 system iiKleliiiitely, and, on its witljdrawal, much excitement has been 
 occasioned amonjf tlie coast population of tlie Eastern States of the 
 Union l)y the ca])ture of boats engaged in iHegal fisliing, contrary to 
 the convention of 1818. 
 
 The corres|)ondence will put you in possession of the facts of the sev- 
 eral captures, and enable you to judge, and explain, if necessary, how 
 far the pretensions of the American tisliermen are exaggerated, and the 
 leniency with which they have been treated under the (lirections of Her 
 Majesty's government and of the government of the Dominion by tlie 
 otticers charged with the protection of the British fisheries. 
 
 Irrespe(!ti ve, however, of the captures and confiscations of boats during 
 the recent fishing season, there are, and have been for many years, dif- 
 ferences of interpretation put upon the convention of 1818 by the re- 
 spective governments, which might, at any time, rise into serious 
 importance. 
 
 The two chief questions are : As to whether the expression "three 
 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Bri- 
 tannic IMajesty's dominions" should i>e taken to mean a limit of three 
 miles from the coast line, or a limit of three miles from a line drawn 
 from headland to headland ; and whether the proviso that "the Ameri- 
 can fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the 
 purpose of shelter, and of repairing <lamage8 therein, of purchasing 
 wood, and of ol)taining water, and for no other purpose whatever, is 
 intended to exclude American vessels from coming inshore to traffic, 
 transshi]) fish, purchase stores, hire seamen, &c. 
 
 Her Majesty's government would be glad to learn that you were able 
 to arrive at a conclusive understanding with the commissioners of the 
 United States upon the disputed interpretation of the convention of 
 1818 ; but they fear that you will find it expedient that a settlement 
 should be arrived at by some other means, in whicli case they will be 
 ])repared for the whole question of the relations between the United 
 States and the British possessions in North America, as regards the 
 fisheries, being referred for consideration and inquiry to an interna- 
 tional commission, on which two commissioners, to be hereafter ap- 
 pointed, in consultation with the government of the Dominion, should 
 be the British representatives. 
 
 Should the (Tovernment of the United States concur in this, it would 
 be advisable that no time should Jje lost in appointing commissioners on 
 their side, and in the commission commencing its labors; and, as it is 
 scarcely probable that the commissioners will be able to report, and a 
 treaty be framed, before the commencement of the next fishing season, 
 it would be also desirable that you should agree upon some means, by 
 license or otherwise, by which disputes may be avoided in the mean- 
 while. 
 
 2. Free navigation of the river Saint Lawrence and privilege of passing 
 
 through the Canadian canals. 
 
 The President of the United States, in bis message at the opening of 
 Congress in December last, referred to the claim of free navigation of 
 the river Saint Lawrence as being an occasion of difierence between the 
 two countries. 
 
 The fourth article of the reci[)rocity treaty provided that the citizens 
 and iidial)itants of the United States should be allowed to navigate the 
 river.Saiut Lawrence and the canals of Canada ; and Her Majesty's gov- 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 37.' 
 
 .) 
 
 erntnont tire not aware that any pvuctic.al «lilti(!ulty as to tlie free navi- 
 gation ot the iSaint Lawrence has arisen since the abrogation of that 
 treaty. 
 
 Tlie exc-lnsive right to the navigation of the Saint Lawrence was main- 
 tained by this conntry tiironghont the dis(!ussions between the two 
 governments on the subject in lSU4-'li7, and lias been airknowh^dged as 
 existing by this article of the reciprocity treaty, nnder which the British 
 government retained the right of suspending tlio ))rivilege. 
 
 Her Majesty's Government are, nevertiieless, now willing to admit the 
 principle of the navigation of the Saint Lawrence being free to the citi- 
 zens of the United States, subject to such tolls and regulations as may be 
 imposed equally on British subjects. 
 
 This, however, cannot extend, except as a special privilege to the 
 ])assage through the canals constructed by (Janatlian enterprise through 
 i3ritish territory, without which, from the strength of the current and 
 dangerous rapids, the navigation of the Saint Lawrence cannot be prolit- 
 ably conducted ; and tlie best coui'se will luobably be found to be to 
 refer these questions for detailed examiimtion and mutual arrangement 
 in relation to the transit of goods in bond through Maine, Saint John 
 Kiver lumber trade, navigation of Lake Michigan, passage through the 
 canals in Uniled States territory, and other similar nmtters, to the 
 commission to be appointed to consider and report upon the tisheries. 
 
 5. The Manitoba boundary. 
 
 The President has already intimated to Congress that he is of opinion 
 that the survey of the boundary along the forty-ninth parallel, which 
 has only been carried out across the Uociky Mountains to the Gulf of 
 Georgia, should be completed from the Lake of the Woods to the foot 
 of the Rocky Mountains. 
 
 In this Her Majesty's government concur, and will be ready to ap- 
 point a (lomnrission for the purpose whenever the United States Govern- 
 ment think fit. 
 
 5. The Alabaniaj Shenandoah, cCu, claims. 
 
 Under this head are comprised the claims against Great Britain for 
 damages sustained by the depredations of the Alabama, Shenandoah, and 
 Georgia, the vessels which were furnished on account of the so styled 
 Confederate States and armed outside of British jurisdiction, and of the 
 Florida, which, though built in England, was armed and equipped in 
 the port of Mobile. 
 
 The history of these vessels is so fully explained in the long corre- 
 spondence which has taken place with regard to them, that it is unneces- 
 sary for me now to do more than point out that the claims which have 
 been preferred on account of the Alabama stand on a ditterent footing 
 to those arising from the captures made bj- the other cruisers ; in so far 
 as the Alabama escaped from Liverpool after evidence had been sup- 
 plied by the United States minister of the service for which she was 
 intended. 
 
 Her Majesty's government adhere to the principle of arbitration for 
 the settlement of these claims, which was recognized and adopted in 
 the convention signed by Lord Clarendon and Mr. Keverdy Johnson as 
 being, in their opinion, the most appropriate m jde of settling this ques- 
 tion ; and, should arbitration be adopted, Her Majesty's government 
 would concur, if the United States Government proposed it, in jurists 
 
37G 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 '< H 
 
 I 
 
 n ' 
 
 
 ti li 
 
 proporly a«'leoteil boiiifj made the arbitnitoivs instead of a sovereign or 
 state, iis ptovided in tlj(^ lute eoiiventioii. 
 
 AUIi(>H}jli, however, Her Msijesty'a jjovernineiit are of opiHioti that 
 arbitration ia the most ap|)rt)priato mo(ie of settlement, you are at lib- 
 erty to transmit for their eonsideration any otlier proposal which may 
 be snftj>ested for determininj; and elosinjj; the (pieation of these claims. 
 
 For the escape of the Alabama and conseipient injury to the coini'ierce 
 of the United States, Her Majesty's jjovernment authorize you to express 
 their rej^rcit in such terms as would be agreeable to the Government of 
 the United States and not inconsistent with the |)oaiti()n hitherto nmiii- 
 taine«l by Her Mnjesty's government as to the international obligations 
 of neutral nations. 
 
 6. The San Jnan water-boundary. 
 
 The line of water-boundary under the first article of the treaty of 
 Jane 1"), 1<S4(», upon which tlie British and Anu'rican comniissioneis 
 ap])ointed for its dennirkation differed, was proimsed by Lord Russell as 
 a lit subject for arbitriition in 1<S5!> ; but, owing to the civil wur, tlie 
 negotiations then instituted were not bioughtto acon(;lusion,and it was 
 not until the 14th of January, ]<S(»0, that a convention was signed be- 
 tween Lord Clarendon and Mr. Keverdy Johnson for referring the mat- 
 ter to an arbitrator; the president of the Swiss confederation being 
 sele(;ted at the instance of the Government of the United States. 
 
 Although this (convention was recommen<led by the Senate Commit- 
 tee on Foreign Aifairs for ratification,* it has not been brought before the 
 Senate, and the period within which its ratification should have taken 
 place has now expired. 
 
 This delay has been accounted for by the United States Government 
 as having been occasioned by the delay, necessarily unavoiilable, in 
 carrying through the Imperial Parliament the measures re<piired for 
 enabling the naturalization treaty to be concluded ; the two treaties 
 having been in the tirst instance included in the same negotiation under 
 tlie protocol of the lOth of November, 18ti8, upon which the treaty of 
 the 14th of January, 1800, was framed. 
 
 The naturalization treaty having been ratitied some months ago. Her 
 Majesty's government trust that the Government of the United States 
 will no longer hesitate to act upon the water-bouiulary treaty, which 
 sliould in that case be api)ende<l to and form part of the general treaty 
 for the mode of settlement of all outstanding diliereuces which you are 
 empowered to sign. 
 
 Should, however, a form of arbitration admitting of more free discus- 
 sion be preferred, Her Majesty's government would assent to such a pro- 
 posal. 
 
 7. The claims of British subjects. 
 
 Through the negotiations on the x\labama, Shenandoah, &c., claims. 
 Her Majesty's government have always urged that any satisfactory set- 
 tlement of those claims must be accompanied by a simultaneous settle- 
 ment of the claims of British subjects arising out of the civil war, and 
 provision was made for this purpose in the claims convention. 
 
 Her JMajesty's government would expect that the Government of the 
 L^nited States would readily consent to all claims of British subjects 
 against. the United States, or of United States citizens against Great 
 
 * See North America, No. 1 , (lti69,) p. 44. 
 
^ 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 :\11 
 
 reigii or 
 
 ion that 
 « at lib- 
 lich may 
 claims, 
 oinvunce 
 I) express 
 II men t of 
 to inaiii- 
 iligatioiis 
 
 treaty of 
 lissioners 
 liissell as 
 war, the 
 iid it was 
 ifjiied be- 
 : the mat- 
 oil 
 ;es, 
 
 being 
 
 Commit- 
 )efore the 
 ve taken 
 
 vernment 
 i(hible, in 
 nired for 
 o treaties 
 ion nmler 
 treaty of 
 
 ago, 
 
 ITer 
 
 d States 
 y, wliieh 
 d treaty 
 you are 
 
 e discns- 
 ich a pro- 
 
 ., claims, 
 tory set- 
 is settle- 
 svar, and 
 
 lit of the 
 subjects 
 St Great 
 
 Britain, being referred to a mixed commission, formed of one commis- 
 sioner for eacli country and an nini)ire, as was done under the conven- 
 tion of the 8th of February, 1853. 
 
 8. The claims of thciwojile of Canada on account of the Fenian raidn. 
 
 In connection with the claims of British subjeirts there is a claim on 
 the part of tiie peoi)Io of the Dominion of Canada for losses in life and 
 pro|)erty and ex|)enditure, occasioned by the tilibustering raids on tlio 
 Canadian frontier, carried on from the territory of the Un ted States 
 in the years 1800 and 1870. 
 
 The government of the Dominion having solicited Her INIajesty's gov- 
 ernment to bring this claim before the Government of the United States, 
 were requested some time ago to prepare a statement to be submitted to 
 that Government, but it has not yet been received. 
 
 In the meanwhile the accompanying a(!coiiiit of the Fenian brother- 
 hood, whicii has been drawn up l»y Lord Tenterden, will supply you with 
 full infiaination as to the eiKiouragement and support remlered in th«i 
 United States to this and other Irish-American revolutionary societies. 
 
 9. Revision of rules of maritime neutrality. 
 
 It would be desirable to take this opportunity to consider whether it 
 might not be the interest of both Great Britain and the United States 
 to lay down certain rules of international comity in regard to the obliga- 
 tions of maritime neutrality, not only to be acknowledged for observ- 
 ance in their future relations, but to be recommended for adoption to the 
 otiier maritime powers. 
 
 I have thus touched briefly upon the subjects likely, principally, to 
 engage your attention, and have indicated the manner in which they 
 may be possibly treated ; but Her Majesty's government wish you to 
 understand that you are not thereby precluded from entertaining the 
 consideration of other questions or making any suggestions you may 
 think pro]»er for their settlement. 
 
 Her Majesty's government request, however, that if the mode of deal- 
 ing with any particuhir matter which you may be disposed to agree to 
 should vary materially from the mannvr of settlement to which 1 have 
 informed you Her Alajesty's government are prepared at once to assent, 
 or, in case of any disagreement of importance occurring between your- 
 selves and the American High Commissioners, you should at once rei>ort 
 by telegrai)h, and await further instructions. 
 1 am, &c., 
 
 GKANVILLE. 
 
 ^^o. 2. 
 Earl Granville to Her Majestifs High Commissioners. 
 
 Foreign Office, February 9, 1871. 
 
 My Lord and Gentlemen : With reference to my other dispatch of 
 this day's date, in which I have adverted to the revision of the rules 
 of maritime neutrality as being one of the subjects which will probably 
 be presented for your consideration, I have to state to you that the 
 
 'I 
 
378 
 
 GENERAL \PI»ENDIX. 
 
 i-'< 
 
 extent to which a iXMitnil »!oimtry may be hereafter held jiisHy lialih' for 
 the (lispateh, after notU^e, of a vessel under similar <!ir(!amstaiic«'s to 
 those ill the easo of the Alabama eaiiiiot he pnuMsely detiiieil in the 
 ]U'esent staye of the controversy ; but there are other points in which it 
 may be eonvenient to yon to be informed beforehand that this govern- 
 ment are willing to enter into an agreement. 
 
 These are — 
 
 That no vessel employed in the military or naval service of any bel- 
 ligerent wlii<!h shall iiave been equipped, litted out, armed, ordispat<*lu'd 
 contrary to the neutrality of neutral state should be admitted into any 
 port of that state. 
 
 That prizes captured by 8U(!h vessels, or otherwise captured in viola- 
 tion of the neutrality of any state, shouhl, if brougiit within the juris- 
 diction of that state, be restored. 
 
 That, in time of war, no vessel should be recognized as a ship of war, 
 or received in any port of a neutral state as a ship of war, which has 
 not been commissioned in some port in the actual occupation of the gov- 
 ernment by whom her commission is issued. 
 
 The first of these rules has been incorporated into the foreign-enlist- 
 nieiit a»!t, passed during the last year, and both the first and second were 
 include<l in the report of the royal commission for inquiring into the 
 ueutitility laws. 
 
 I am, iS:c., 
 
 GRANVILLE. 
 
 
 >9 
 
 No. 3. 
 Ead Granville to the Lord High Commissioners. 
 
 Foreign Office, February 0, 1871. 
 
 My Lord and Grntlemen : I have to inform you that Lord Tenter- 
 den has been appointed secretary of the High Commission, and will pro- 
 ceed to Washingtou accordingly. 
 I am, «&c., 
 
 GRANVILLE. 
 
V.-PROTiCOLS OF CONFERENCES BETWEEN THE AMERICAN 
 
 COMMISSIONERS AND THE BRITISH COMMISSIONERS, 
 
 HELD AT WASHINGTON, BETWEEN FEB- 
 
 RUARY 21 AND MAY 0, ISll 
 
\ ^ 
 
^ 
 
 V.-PROTOCOLS OF CONFERENCES. 
 
 I.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN, THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS ON 
 THK TART OF THE UNITED STATKS OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH COM- 
 MISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT I RITAIN. 
 
 Washington, February 27, 1871. 
 The High Commissioners having met, their full powers were respect- 
 ively produced, which were fouud sutisfiictory, and copies thereof ex- 
 changed, as follows : " 
 
 ULYSSES S. GRANT, President of the United Staten of America, to all 
 who shall see these presents, greeting : 
 
 Know ye that, reposing special trust and confidence in the integrity 
 and ability of Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State ; Robert C. Schenck, 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Great Britain ; 
 Samuel Nelson, an Associate Justice of the Suprenib Court of the 
 United States ; Ebenezer R. Hoar, of Massachusetts, and George H. 
 Williams, of Oregon, I have nominated and, by and with the advice and 
 consent of the Senate, do appoint them, jointly and severally, to be Com- 
 missioners on the part of the United States, in a Joint High Coinniis- 
 siou between the United States and Great Britain ; hereby empowering 
 them, jointly and severally, to meet the Commissioners appointed or to 
 be appointed on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty, and with them to treat 
 and discuss the mode of settlement of the different questions which 
 shall come before the said Joint High Commission, and the said office 
 to hold and exercise during the pleasure of the President of the United 
 States, for the time being. 
 
 In testimony whereof I have caused these letters to be made patent, 
 and the seal of the tTnited States to be hereunto affixecl. 
 
 Given under my hand at the city of Washington, this tenth day of 
 February, in the year of our Lord one thousaiul eight huu- 
 
 [SEAL.] dred and seventy one, and of tlie independence of the United 
 States of America the ninety -tifth. 
 
 U. S. GRANT. 
 
 By the President : 
 
 Hamilton Fish, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 YICTORIA, Reg.— Victoria, by the Grace of God, Queen of the United 
 Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, ttc, tOc, 
 rfrc, To All and Singular to whom these Presents sjiall come, Greeting! 
 
 Whereas for the puri)ose of discussing in a friendly spirit, with Com- 
 missioners to be appointed on the part of our Good Frieiuls The United 
 States of America, the various questions on which differences have 
 arisen between Us and Our said Good Friends, and of treating for an 
 Agreement as to the mode of their amicable settlum.ent, We iiave judged 
 it expedient to invest fit persons with Full Power to conduct on Our Part 
 the discussions in this behalf : — Know Ye, therefore, thsit We, reposing 
 especial Trust and Coutidence in the Wisdom, Loyalty, Diligence, and 
 Circumspection of Our Right Trusty aud Right Well beloved Cousiu 
 
382 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 IS'.'.' * 
 
 hi 
 
 
 > ■ 
 1 I 
 
 If: I 
 
 .)\ 
 
 M 
 
 and Councillor (Tcorge Frederick Samuel Earl de Grey and Earl of Ripou' 
 Viscount Goderich, Baron Grantham, a Baronet, a Peer of Our United 
 Kingdom, President of our Most Honourable Privy Council* Knight of 
 Our Mt)st Noble Order of the Garter, «&c., &c. ; of Our Right Trusty and 
 Well-beloved Councillor Sir Stafford Henry Xorthcote, Baronei, a Mem- 
 ber of Parliament, Companion of Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, 
 &c., &c. ; of Our Trusty and Well-beloved Sir .Edward Thornton, Knight 
 Commander of Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Our Envoy 
 Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Our Good Friends The 
 United States of America; of Our Tmsty and Well-beloved Sir John 
 Alexander Macdonald, Knight Commander of Our Most Honourable 
 Order of the Bath, a Member of Our Privy Council for Canada, and 
 Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of our ]3ominion of Canada; 
 and of Our Trusty and Well-beloved Montague Bernard, Escpiire, Chi- 
 chele Professor of International Law in the University of Oxford; have 
 named, made, constituted, and appointed, as We «lo by these Presents, 
 name, make, constitute, and appoint them Our undoubted High Com- 
 missioners, Procurators, and Plenipotentiaries: — Giving to them, or to 
 any three or more of them, all manner of Power and Authority to treat, 
 adjust, and cont'liide with such Minister or Ministers as may be vested 
 with similar Power and Authority on the i)art of Our Good Friends The 
 United States of America, any Treaties, Con\entions, or Agreements 
 that may tend to the attainment of the above-mentioned end, and to 
 sign for Us, and in Our Name, everything so agreed upon and concluded, 
 and to do and transact all such other nnitters as may appertain to the 
 finishing of the aforesaid work in as ample manner and form, and with 
 e(iual force and efficacy, as We Ourselves could do, if Personally Prc'S- 
 ent: — Engaging and Promising upon Our Royal Word, that whatever 
 things shall be so transacted and concluded by Our said High Commis- 
 sioners, Procurators, and Plenipotentiaries, shall be agreed to, acknowl- 
 edged, and accepted by Us in the fullest manner, and that We will never 
 suffer, (dther in the \yhole o;* in part, any person whatsoever to infringe 
 the same, or act contrary thereto, as far as it lies in Our Power. 
 
 In Witness whereof We have caused the Great Seal of Our United 
 Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to be aflixed to these Presents, 
 which We have signed with Our Royal Hand. 
 
 Given at Our Court at Windsor Castle, the Sixteenth day of February, 
 in the year of Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy- 
 One, and in the Thirty-Fourth Year of our Reign. 
 
 It was proposed by the British High Commissioners that Mr. Fish, 
 Secretary of State of the United States, should preside. 
 
 The United States Commissioner stated that, although appreciating 
 the proposal, they did not consider it necessary that a i)resideut shouhl 
 be named. 
 
 The Bigh Commissioners, on the suggestion of Mr. Fish, requested 
 Lord Tenterden, Secretary to the British High Commission, and Mr. 
 Bancroft. Davis, Assistant Secretary of State of the United States, act- 
 ing as secretary to tlie United States High Commission, to undertake 
 the duties of joint protocolists. 
 
 The High Commissioners then agreed that the subjects for discussion 
 should be tho.^j mentioned in the following correspondence which had 
 taken place between the two Governments. 
 
 Ill: 
 
 i 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 383 
 
 of Ripou' 
 iir United 
 Knight of 
 rusty and 
 i, a Mein- 
 tbeBath, 
 n, Kniglit 
 nr Envoy 
 iends The 
 Sir .Tolin 
 ononrable 
 nada, and 
 ' Canada; 
 |uire, Clii- 
 L)rd ; have 
 Presents, 
 ligh Com- 
 lieni, or to 
 y to treat, 
 be vested 
 ienda The 
 greenients 
 nd, and to 
 iou eluded, 
 tain to the 
 , and with 
 udly Pres- 
 whatever 
 1 Comiuis- 
 , aclvuowl- 
 will never 
 o infringe 
 er. 
 
 iir United 
 Presents, 
 
 February, 
 Seventy- 
 Mr. Fish, 
 
 preciating 
 ^nt should 
 
 requested 
 , and Mr. 
 tates, act- 
 undertake 
 
 liscussiou 
 vhiuh had 
 
 1. Sir Edicard Thornton to Mr. Fish. 
 
 Washington, e7<»«tm/7/ 20, 1871. 
 
 Sir: Tn compliance with an instruction which I have recreived from 
 Earl (Iranville, I have ihe honor to st;ite that Her Majesty's Goveiiiment 
 deem it of importance to the good rehitions which they are ever anxious 
 shouhl subsist and be strengthened between the United States and 
 Great Britain, that a friendly and conii)lete understanding slionhl be 
 come to between ti«e two Governments as to tlie extent ot the rights 
 which belong to the citizens of the United States and Her I\Iajesty's 
 subjects, respectively, witii reference to the fisheries on the (toasts of 
 Her Majesty's possessions in North America, and as to any other ques- 
 tions between them which affect the relations of the United States 
 toward those possessions. 
 
 As the consideration of these matters would, however, involve investi- 
 gations of a somewhat complicated nature, and as it is very desirable 
 that they should be thoroughly examined, I am dire(;ted by Lord Gran- 
 ville to [)ropose to the Government of the United States the appoint- 
 nu^ntof a Joint High Gommission, which shall be composed of members 
 to be named by each Government; shall hold its sessions at Washington, 
 and shall treat of and discuss the mode of settling the ditferent (pies- 
 tions which have arisen out of the lisheries, as well as all those which 
 affect the relations of the United States toward Her Majesty's posses- 
 sions in North America. 
 
 1 am confident that this proposal will be met by your Government in 
 the same cordial spirit of friendship which has induced Her Majesty's 
 Government to tender it, and I cannot doubt that in that case the rei^ilt 
 will not fail to contribute to the maintenance of the good relations b*^- 
 tween the two countries, which I am couvince<l the Government of the 
 United States, as well as that of Her Miijesty, eipially have at heart. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
 obedient, humble servant, 
 
 EDWAUD THOllNTON. 
 
 Hon. Hamilton Fish, etc., ifcc. 
 
 2. Mr. Fish to Sir Edicard Thornton. 
 
 Department of State, 
 
 Wanhington, January 30, 1871. 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of 
 January 20, in which you inform me, in compliance witli instructions 
 from Eiirl Granville, that Her Majesty's Government deem it of import- 
 ance to the good relations which they are ever anxions shonld subsist 
 ami be strengthened between the United States and Great Britain, that 
 a friendly and complete understanding should be con)e to between the 
 two (iovernments as to the (Extent of the rights which belong to the 
 citizens of the United States and Her Majesty's subjects, respectively, 
 with reference to the fisheries on the coasts of Her Majesty's i)ossessions 
 in North America, and as to any other questions between them which 
 affect tlie relations of the United States toward those possesions; and 
 further, that as the consideration of these (piestions wouhl involve 
 investigations of a somewhat complicate«i nature, and as it is verj 
 desirable that they should be thoroughly examined, you are directed by 
 
 •'» 
 
 J 
 
384 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 ffi 
 
 -.1 ^ 
 
 i 
 
 Lord Granville to propose to the Government of the United States the 
 appointment of a Joint High Commission, which shall be composed of 
 njembers to be named by each Government ; shall hold its sessions at 
 Washington, and shall treat of and discuss the mode of settling the 
 ditt'erent questions which have arisen out of the tisheries, as well as all 
 those which attect the relations of the United States toward Her 
 Majesty's possessions in North America. 
 
 I have laid your note before the President, who instructs me to say 
 that he shares with Her Majesty's Government the appreciation of the 
 importance of a friendly and complete understanding between the two 
 Governments with reference to the subjects specially snggested for the 
 consid»>ratiou of the proposed Joint High Commission, and he fully 
 recognizes the friendly spirit which has prompted the proposal. 
 
 The President is, however, of the opinion that, without the adjust- 
 ment of a class of questions not alluded to in your note, tlu^ i)roposed 
 High Commission would fail to establish the permanent relations and 
 the sincere, substantial, and lasting friendship between the twoGovt'rn- 
 ments which, in common with Her Majesty';; Government, he desires 
 should prevail. 
 
 He thinks that the removal of the differences which arose during the 
 rebellion in the United States, and which have existed since then, grow- 
 ing out of the acts committed by the several vessels which have given 
 rise to the claims generically known as the "Alabama" claims, will 
 also be essential to the restoration of cordial and amicable relations 
 between the two Governments. He directs me to say that should Her 
 Majesty's Government accept this view of the matter, and assent that 
 this subject also may be treated of by the proposed High Counnission, 
 and may thus be put in the way of a final and amicable settlement, this 
 Government will, with much pleasure, appoint High Commissioners on 
 the part of the United States, to meet those who may be appointed on 
 behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and will spare no efforts to secure, 
 at the earliest practical moment, a just and amicable arrangement of 
 all the questions which now unfortunately stand in the way of an entire 
 and abiding friendship between the two nations. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obe- 
 dient servant, 
 
 HAMILTON FISH. 
 
 Sir Edward Thornton, K. C. B., cC-c, iCc, d;c. 
 
 3. Sir Edward Thornton to Mr. Fish. 
 
 Washington, February 1, 1871. 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 
 30th ultimo, and to otter you my sincere and cordial thanks for the 
 friendly and conciliatory spirit which pervades it. 
 
 With reference to that part of it in which you state that the President 
 thinks that the removal of the differences which arose during the rebel- 
 lion in the United States, and which have existed since then, growing 
 out of the acts committed by the several vessels which have given rise 
 to the claims generically known as the "Alabama*' claims, will also be 
 essential to the restoration of cordial and amicable relations between 
 the two Governments, I have the honor to inform you that I have sub- 
 mitted to Earl Granville the opinion thus expressed by the President of 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 385 
 
 o 
 
 ;ates the 
 |)().sod of 
 sioiis at 
 ling the 
 ill as all 
 ird Her 
 
 le to say 
 II of the 
 the two 
 I for the 
 he fully 
 
 i adjnst- 
 )ro[)08ed 
 Otis and 
 Govcni- 
 I desires 
 
 iring the 
 n, grow- 
 ve given 
 iui8, will 
 relations 
 aid Her 
 ent that 
 [mission, 
 ent, this 
 oners on 
 nted on 
 ) secure, 
 jnent of 
 n entire 
 
 our obe- 
 
 ^ISH. 
 
 1871. 
 
 of the 
 for the 
 
 e 
 
 resident 
 e rebel- 
 > rowing 
 ven rise 
 also be 
 )etween 
 ive sub- 
 ident of 
 
 the United States, the friendliness of which, I beg you to believe, I fully 
 appreciate. 
 
 I am noAV authorized by His Lordship to state that it would give Her 
 Majesty's Government great satisfaction if the claims commonly known 
 by the name of the " Alabama" claims were submitted to the considera- 
 tion of th»; same High Commission by which Her ^lajesty's Government 
 have pr«>posed that the questions relating to the British possessions in 
 North America should be discussed, provided that all other claims, both 
 of British subjects and citizens of the United States, arising out of acts 
 committed during the recent civil war in this country, are similarly re- 
 fL'rred to the sanu' Commission. The expressions made use of in the name 
 of the President in your above-mentioned note, with regard to the "Ala- 
 bama" claims, convince me that the Government of the United States 
 will consider it of importance that these causes (»!' disputes between the 
 two countries should also, and at the same time, be done away with, and 
 that you will enable me to convey to my Government the assent of tlie 
 President to the addition which they thus propose to the duties of the 
 High Commission, and which cannot tail to make it more certain that 
 its labors will lead to the removal of all differences between the two 
 counrries. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
 obedient, humble servant, 
 
 EDWARD THOliXTOX. 
 
 Hon. HA3[ilton Fish, c&c, tOc, <tc. 
 
 4. ^1/;'. Fiish to Sir Edward Thornton. 
 
 Department of State, 
 
 Washington, February 3, 1871. 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of 
 the 1st instant, in which you inform me that you are authorized by Karl 
 Granville to state that it would give Her Alajesty's (ioveriiment great 
 saiisraction if the claims commonly known by the name of the ''Ala- 
 bama claims" were submitted to the consideration of the same High Com- 
 mission by Avhich Her Majesty's Government have proposed that the 
 questions relations to the British possessions in North Ameiiea should 
 be dis(!assed, provided that all other claims, both of British subjects and 
 citizens of the United States, arising out of acts committed during the 
 reitent civil war in this country, are similarly referred to the same Com- 
 n/ -on. 
 
 1 have laid your note before the President, and he has directed me 
 to express the satisfaction with which he has received the intelligence 
 that Karl Granville has authorized you to state that Her Majesty's (iov- 
 ernment has accepted the views of this Government as to the disposition 
 to be made of the so-called ''Alabama claims." 
 
 He alf o directs me to say, with reference to the remaimler of your 
 note, that if there be other and further claims of British subejcts, or of 
 American citizens, growing out of acts connnitted during the recent civil 
 war in this country, he assents to the propriety of their reference to the 
 same High Conunission ; but he suggests that the High Commissiotiers 
 shall consider only such claims of this description as may be presented 
 
 25 H 
 
386 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 l)y the Governments of the respective claimants at an early dnj', to he 
 agreed npon by the Comniissioners. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obe 
 dient servant, 
 
 HAMILTON FISH. 
 
 Sir Edward TnoRNTON, K. (J. B., tfc-c, tCx., c£c. 
 
 The Commissioners fnrther determined tliat the discMission might 
 incUidc snch other matters as might be nuitnally agreed npon. 
 
 The meeting of the High Commissioners was then adjourned to the 
 4th of March. 
 
 J. C. BANCEOFT DAVIS. 
 TENTERDEN. 
 
 F'l' 
 
 
 II.— rROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OP THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, March 4, 1871. 
 
 Tlie High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 27th of February was read and confirmed. 
 
 At the {'ommenceinent of the conference the United States High Com- 
 missioners called attention to the provision in the Constitution of the 
 United States by which the advice and consent of the Senate is required 
 for the ratification of any treaty which may be signed under the author 
 ity of the President. 
 
 The British High Commissioners stated that they were acquainted 
 with this provision. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded Avith the consideration ot 
 the matters referred to them. 
 
 The conference was adjourned to the Gth of March. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEKDEN. 
 
 t ♦ 
 
 III.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, March 6, 1871. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 4th of March was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 8th of March. 
 
 J. C. BANCEOFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEEDEN. 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 387 
 
 y (lay, to he 
 r, your ol)e 
 m FISH. 
 
 ssion might 
 iriied to the 
 ' DAVIS. 
 
 IV.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THK PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COM.NHSSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIX. 
 
 Wasuington, March 8, 1871. 
 The Hifih Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the Gth of March was read and contirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 9th of March. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEKDEN. 
 
 MISSIONERS 
 THE HIGH 
 
 h 4, 1871. 
 conference 
 
 I High Com- 
 ition of the 
 ! is required 
 the author 
 
 ac<iuaiuted 
 
 [deration oi 
 
 DAVIS. 
 
 mSSIONERS 
 THE HIGH 
 
 i G, 1871. 
 conference 
 
 deration of 
 DAVIS. 
 
 v.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 WASHINGTON, March 9, 1871. 
 
 Tlie High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 hehl on tlie 8th of March was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to tliem. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 10th of March. 
 
 J. C. UANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEKDEN. 
 
 VL— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, March 10, 1871. 
 
 The Higli Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 9th of March was read and coulirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then i)roceeded Avith the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 13th of March. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTERDEN. 
 
 VII.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 WASHINGTON, March 13, 1871. 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 10th of March was read and cohflrmt J. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 14th of March. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTERDEN. 
 
388 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 VIII.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 OF THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, March 14, 1871. 
 The High Coinmissioners having met, the piotocol of the eoufereuce 
 hekl on the 13th of March was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration ot 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the loth of March. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEKDEN. 
 
 
 hf 
 
 IX.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, March 15, 1871. 
 The High Commissioners liaving met, the protocol of the conference 
 hekl on the 14th of March was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 Tlie conference was adjourned to the ICth of March. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEKDEN. 
 
 
 X.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONEPS ON 
 THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH .;0M- 
 MISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 WASHINGTON, March 16, 1871. 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the loth of March was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 17th of March. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTERDEN. 
 
 XL— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, March 17, 1871. 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 10th of March v^as read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 18th of March. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTERDEN. 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 389 
 
 [SSIOXERS 
 HE HIGH 
 
 4, 1871. 
 oufereuce 
 
 eration ot 
 )AYIS. 
 
 XII.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH C0MMI<5SIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, March 18, 1871. 
 
 The nij?h Conimissionera having met, the protocol of the conference 
 hehl on the 17th of Marcli was read and confirmed. 
 
 The Higli Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of the 
 matters referred to them. 
 Tlie conference was adjourned to the 20th of Marcli. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEKDIiJN. 
 
 SSIONERS 
 'HE HIGH 
 
 5, 1871. 
 onference 
 
 (ration of 
 )AVIS. 
 
 Xin— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED Sl'ATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 WASHINGTON, March 20, 1871. 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 18th of March was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 22d of March. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEKDEN. 
 
 )NET^S ON 
 IGH . :0M- 
 
 5, 1871. 
 )uference 
 
 ration of 
 
 AVIS. 
 
 XIV.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 WASHINGTON, March 22, 1871. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 20th of March was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 23d of March. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTERDEN. 
 
 3SI0NERS 
 3E HIGH 
 
 , 1871. 
 mference 
 
 ration of 
 AVIS. 
 
 XV.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 WASHINGTON, March 23, 1871. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 22d of March was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 25th of March. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTERDEN. 
 
 4 . 
 
 
 
390 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 XVI.-PROTOCOL OF CONFEllENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONEKS 
 ON TinO PAKT OF THE UNITED STATFS OF AMEHICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, March 25, 1871. 
 The High Commissioners liaving met, tlie protocol of the confereiKio 
 held on the 23d of March was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 27th of March. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEKDEN. 
 
 XVII.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, March 27, 1871. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of tlie conference 
 held on the 25th of March was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 30tli of March. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTERDEN. 
 
 XVIII.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT pi'lTAIN. 
 
 WASHINGTON, 3larch 30, 1871. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 27th of March was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 3d of April. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTERDEN. 
 
 W\ 
 
 iti 
 
 XIX.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, April 3, 1871. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 30th of March was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of the 
 matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 5th of April. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTERDEN. 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 391 
 
 SSIONERS 
 'J IE HIUII 
 
 >, 1871. 
 )nfeience 
 
 ration of 
 
 AVIS. 
 
 XX.— PROTOCOL OP CONFEREX(JE IJETWKEN THE IIKJII CO.MMISSIOMCRS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITKD STATKS OP AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT IJRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, April 5, 1871. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the couforeneo 
 hehl on the 3(1 of April was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with tlie consideration of tlio 
 matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the Gth of April. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEKDEN. 
 
 5SIONER8 
 HE HIGH 
 
 , 1871. 
 uference 
 
 ration of 
 
 AVIS. 
 
 XXI— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 Ox THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 WASHINGTON, April 6, 1S71. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 5tli of April was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of the 
 matters referred to them. 
 Tlie (!onference was adjourned to the 8th of April. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEKDEN. 
 
 SIGNERS 
 IE HIGH 
 
 1871. 
 I fere nee 
 
 at ion of 
 ^VIS. 
 
 XXII.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 WASHINGTON, April 8, 1871. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the Gth of April was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of the 
 matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 10th of April. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEKDEN. 
 
 =iIONERS 
 IE HIGH 
 
 1871. 
 
 iference 
 n of the 
 
 VIS. 
 
 XXIII.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSION- 
 ERS ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE 
 HIGH COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, April 10, 1 871. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 8th of April was read and conflrned. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of the 
 matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 12th of April. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEKDEi^^. 
 
392 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 XXrV.— PROTOCOL or CONKEUENCE HETWEEN the HKJIT C0M>fISSIOX- 
 ER.S 0\ THE PART OF THE UNITED STATER OF AMERICA AND THE 
 HKiH COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT IJRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, April 12, 1.S71. 
 
 Tlie High ComrnissiDners having met, the i)rotocol of the conference 
 held on the lOtli of AjH'il wna read and contirnied. 
 
 Tlie High ConiniissicmorH then proceeded with the consideration of tl»e 
 nintters referred to tliem. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 13th of April. 
 
 J. 0. liANCKOFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEIIDEN. 
 
 XXV.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 OX THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH COM- 
 MISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, April 13, 1871. 
 
 The High Coinmissioners having met, the i)rotocol of the conference 
 held on the llith of April was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Coinmissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 14th of April. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEliDEN. 
 
 w 
 
 XXVI.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE liETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH COM- 
 MISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, April 14, 1871. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 13th of April was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 15th of April. 
 
 J. C. BANCllOFT DAVIS. 
 TENTERDEN. 
 
 l^'t 
 
 XXVII.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH COM- 
 MISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, April 15, 1871. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 14th of April was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the nuitters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 17th of April. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENDERDEN. 
 
^ 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 303 
 
 XXVIir.— PRf>TOt;OL OF CONFERENCE HETWEEN THE IIFCill COMMISSION- 
 ERS ON THE PART OF THE IIXITEI) STATES OF AMERICA AND THE 
 lllUH COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF 0RI:AT URITAIN. 
 
 Washington, April 17, 1871. 
 
 The High rommisaioners liavinp met, the i)rotocol of the conference 
 hfcld on the loth of April was read and conttrnied. 
 
 The Hifih Conunisaioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to theni. 
 The conference was adjourned to the ISth of April. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEUDEX. 
 
 ^tK 
 
 XXIX.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIC.H COMMISSION- 
 ElfS ON THE PART OF THE L'NITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE 
 HIGH COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT URITAIN. 
 
 Washington, April 18, 1871. 
 
 The nigh Conimiasioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 hehl on tlie 17tli of April was read and conllrmed. 
 
 The High (Joniinissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 10th of April. 
 
 J. C. BANCIIOFT DAVIS. 
 TENT .IIDEN. 
 
 I 
 
 XXX.— ruOTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PAR'I' OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, April 19, 1871. 
 
 The High Commissioners liaving met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 18th of April was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Connuissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 22d of April. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTERDEN. 
 
 XXXI.— PROTOCOL OP CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 .COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, April 22, 1871. 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 10th of April was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissionei then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to ther . 
 The confereuce was adjourned to the 24th of April. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTERDEN. 
 
394 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 XXXII.— PKOTOCOL OF CONFERENCE IJETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIOXIJRS 
 ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 WASinNGTON, April li4, 1871. 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 22d of April was read and coutirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 25th of A]>ril. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEKDEN. 
 
 m 
 
 
 I 
 
 XXXIII.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSION- 
 ERS ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, April 25, 2871. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 24th of April was read and conflrmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 2Gth of April. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENTEKDEN. 
 
 XXXIV.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSION- 
 ERS ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE 
 HIGH COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 WASHINGTON, April 26, 1871. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 hehl on the 25th of April was read and contiriued. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of the 
 matters referred to them. 
 The conference was adjourned to the 3d of May. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TENDERDEN. 
 
 1 
 
 XXXV.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSION- 
 ERS ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE 
 HIGH COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Washington, May 3, 1871. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 25th of April was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of the 
 matters referred to them. 
 
 The American Commissioners produced the following further full 
 power, under the seal of the United States, authorizing them to con- 
 clude aud sign a treaty : 
 
ISIOXHRS 
 HE HIGH 
 
 , 1871. 
 ut'ereuce 
 
 ration of 
 
 iYIS. 
 
 MISSION- 
 HE HIGH 
 
 1, 2871. 
 ufeience 
 
 ration of 
 
 WIS. 
 
 MISSION- 
 .ND THE 
 
 1871. 
 ufeience 
 
 on of the 
 WIS. 
 
 MISSION- 
 ND THE 
 
 1871. 
 
 nference 
 
 m of tbo 
 
 her full 
 to cou- 
 
 GENEBAL APPENDIX. 
 
 395 
 
 ULYSSES S. GYANT, President of the United States of America, to all 
 to whom these itreseiiis shall come^ greeting : 
 
 Know ye that whereas, by my power bearing date the 10th day of 
 February last, Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State, llobert C. Schenck, 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Groat liricain, 
 Samuel Nelson, an Associate Justice of the Snpreuie Court of the 
 United States, Ebenezer R. Hoar, of Massachusetts, and George II. 
 Williams, of Oregon, were authorized to meet the commissioners ap- 
 pointed, or to be appointed, on behalf of Her Britannic jNInjesty, and 
 with them to treat and discuss the mode of settlement of the ditterent 
 questions which should come before them ; 
 
 And whereas that meeting and discussion have taken, place, and the 
 said mode of settlement has been agreed upon : 
 
 Now, therefore, I, Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States, 
 do hereby appoint the said Hamilton Fish, Robert 0. Schenck, Samuel 
 Nelson, Ebenezer R. Hoar, and George H. Williams, jointly and sev- 
 erally, Plenipotentiaries for and in behalf of the United States, and do 
 authorize them, and any or either of them, to conclude and sign any 
 treaty or treaties touching the premises, for the final ratification of the 
 President of the United States, by and with the advice and conseut of 
 the Senate, if such advice and con.^ent be given. 
 
 In witness whereof I have caused the seal of the United States to bo 
 hereunto affixed. 
 
 Given under my hand at the city of Washington, the second 
 r 1 day of Maj", in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hnn- 
 
 ^ *J dred and seventy-one, and of the Independence of the United 
 States of America the ninety fifth. 
 
 U. S. GRANT. 
 
 By the President : 
 
 Hamilton Fish, 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 This full Power w^as examined by the British Commissioners and 
 found satisfjictory. 
 
 The Joint High Commissioners determined that they would embody 
 in a protocol a statement containii»-> an account of the lU'gotiations 
 upon the various subjects included in the Treaty, and they instructe«l 
 the Joint Protocol ists to prepare such an account in the order in which 
 the subjects are to stand in the Treaty. 
 
 The conference was adjourned to the 4th of May. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAYIS. 
 TENTERDEN. 
 
 XXXVI.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS 
 ON THE PAP.T OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH 
 COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 WASHINGTON, May 4, 1871. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 3d of May was read and confirmed. 
 
 The High Commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of 
 the matters referred to thetu. 
 
 
 i 
 
 ■ 
 
 _J 
 
396 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 Tho Statetiient prepared by the Joint Protocolists, in accordance with 
 the ie<iue.st of the Joint High Commissioners at the last conference, \>as 
 then read as follows : 
 
 STATEMENTS. 
 
 Articles I to XI. 
 
 w 
 
 Mi 
 
 ml 
 
 i' 
 
 
 i 
 
 At the conference held on the eighth of March the American Commis- 
 sioners state<l that the people and Government of the United States felt 
 that they had sustained a great wrong, and that great injuries and losses 
 were inflicted upon their commerce and their material interests by the 
 course and conduct of Great Britain during the recent rebellion in the 
 United States ; that what had occurred in Great Britain and her col- 
 onies during that period had given rise to feelings in the United States 
 which the people of the United States did not desire to cherish to- 
 ward Great Britain ; that the history of the Alabama and other cruisers 
 which had been fitted out, or armed, or equipped, or which had received 
 augmentation of force in Great Britain or in her colonies, and of the 
 operations of those vessels, showed extensive direct losses in the cap- 
 ture and destruction of a large number of vessels with their cargoes, and 
 in the heavy national expenditures in the pursuit of the cruisers, and 
 indirect injury in the transfer of a large part of the American commercial 
 marine to the British flag, in the enhanced payments of insurance, in 
 the prolongation of the war, and in the addition of a large sum to the 
 cost of the Avar and the suppression of the rebellion; and also showed 
 that Great Britain, by reason of failure in the proper observance of her 
 duties as a neutral, had become justlj' liable for the acts of those cruisers 
 and of their tenders ; that the claims for the loss and destruction of pri- 
 vate property which had thus far been presented amounted to about 
 fourteen millions of dollars, without intere:it, Avhich amount was liable 
 to be greatly increased by claims which had not been present«^d ; that 
 the cost to which the Government had been pu* _n the pursuit of cruis- 
 ers could easily be ascertained by certificates of Government account- 
 ing otlicers; that in the hope of an amicable settlement no estimate was 
 made of the indirect losses, without prejudice, however, to the right to 
 indemnification on their account in the event of no such settlement being 
 made. 
 
 The American Comraissioneis further stated that they hoped that the 
 British Commissioners would be able to place upon record an expression 
 of regret by ller Majesty's Government for the depredations committed 
 by the vessels whose a^ts were now under discussion. They also pro- 
 posed that the Joint High Commission should agree upon a sum which 
 should be i)aid by Great Britain to the United States, in satisfaction of 
 all the claims and the interest thereon. 
 
 The British Commissioners replied that Her Majesty's Government 
 could not admit that Great Britain had failed to discharge toward the 
 United States the duties imposed ou her by the rules of International 
 Ivaw, or that she was justly liable to m.ake good to the United States the 
 losses occasioned by the acts of the cruisers to which the American 
 Commissioners had referred. They remir.ded the American Commis- 
 sioners that several vessels, suspected of being designed to cruise against 
 the United States, including two ironclads, had been arrested or de- 
 tained by the British Government, and that that Government had in 
 some instances not confined itself to the discharge of international obli- 
 gations, however widely construed, as, for instance, when it acquired at 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 397 
 
 nee with 
 !iice, \>as 
 
 Commls- 
 tates felt 
 lul losses 
 ts by the 
 )n ill the 
 I her col- 
 id States 
 lerish to- 
 V cruisers 
 received 
 id of the 
 the cap- 
 goes, and 
 isers, and 
 inrnercial 
 irance, iu 
 nn to the 
 showed 
 ice of her 
 e cruisers 
 on of pri- 
 to about 
 as liable 
 tt^d ; that 
 of cruis- 
 account- 
 inate was 
 a right to 
 eut being 
 
 that the 
 xprossion 
 jiiimitted 
 also pro- 
 iin wliicli 
 
 action of 
 
 eminent 
 kvard the 
 national 
 tates the 
 American 
 Coinmis- 
 e against 
 id or de- 
 it had in 
 nal obli- 
 juired at 
 
 a great cost to the country the control of the Anglo-Cliinese Flotilla, 
 which, it was apprehended, might be used against the United States. 
 
 They added that although Great Britain had, from the beginning, dis- 
 avowed any responsibility for the acts of the Ahibania and the other 
 vessels, she had already show n her willingness, for the sake of the main- 
 tenance ot friendly relations with the United States, to adopt the prin- 
 ciple of arbitration, provided that a fitting Arbitrator could be found, 
 and that an agreement could be come to as to the points to which arbi- 
 tration should apply. Tliey would, therefore, abstain from replying iu 
 detail to thestatemeutof the American Commissioners, in the ho[)e that 
 the necessity for entering upon a lengthened controversy might be ob- 
 viated by the adoption of so fair a mode of settlement as that wliich they 
 were instructed to propose; and they had now to repeat, on behalf of 
 their Government, the otter of arbitration. 
 
 The American Commissioners expressed their regret at this decision 
 of the British Commissioners, and said further that they could not con- 
 sent to submit the question of the liability of Her Majesty's CJovern- 
 meiit to arbitration unless the princii)les which should govoru the Arbi- 
 trator iu the consideration of the fa(!ts could be lirst agreed upon. 
 
 The British Connnissioners replied that they had no authority to 
 agree to a submission of these claims to an Arbitrator with insi ructions 
 as to the principles which should govern him iu the consideiation of 
 them. They said tha^. they should be willing to consider what princi 
 pies should be adopted for observance in future; but that they were of 
 opinion that the best mode of conducting an arbitration was to submit 
 the facts to the Arbitrator, and leave him free to decide upon tliem after 
 hearing such arguments as might be necessary. 
 
 The American Commissioners replied that they were willing to con- 
 sider what principles should be laid down for observance in siiiiihir cases 
 in future, with the understanding that any principles that siiould be 
 agreed upon should be held to be applicable to the facts in respect to 
 the Alabama Claims. 
 
 The British Commissioners replied that they could not admit that 
 there had been any violation of existing principles of International Law, 
 and that their instructions did not authorize them to accede to a i)ro- 
 posal for laying down rules for the guidance of the Arbitrator, but that 
 they would make known totheirGovernment the views of the American 
 Commissioners on the subject. 
 
 At the respective conferences on March 9, March 10, March 13, and 
 March 14, the Joint High Commission considered the form of the de- 
 claration of principles or rules which the American Commissioners «le- 
 sired to see adojited for the instruction of the Arbitrator and laid down 
 for observance by the two Governments iu future. 
 
 At the ch)se of the conference of the 14tli of JMarch the British Com- 
 missioners reserved several questions for the consideration ot their Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 At the conference on the 5th of April the British Commissioners 
 stated that they were instructed by Her Majesty's Government to de- 
 clare that Her Majesty's Government could not assent to the pioposed 
 rules as a statement of principles of Interi»atioiial Law which were in 
 force at the time when the Alabama Claims arose, but tliat Her Ma- 
 jesty's Government, iu order to evince its desire of strengthening the 
 friendly relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory 
 provision for the future, agreed that in deciding the questions between 
 the two countries arising out of those claims, the Arbitrator should 
 assume that Her Mjyesty's Government had undertaken to act upon the 
 
 I 
 
 l:«' 
 
if 
 
 398 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 t: 
 
 
 principles set fortli in the rules which the American Commissiouers had 
 proposed, viz : 
 
 That a neutral Government is bound, first, to use due diligence to pre- 
 vent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, with'n its jurisdiction, of any 
 vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or 
 carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use 
 like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel 
 intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been 
 specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike 
 use. 
 
 Secondly. Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of 
 it i ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or 
 for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or 
 arms, or the recruitment of men. 
 
 Thirdly. To exercise due diligence in its own ports or waters, and as 
 to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the 
 foregoing obligations and duties. 
 
 It being a condition of this undertaking, that these obligations should 
 in future be held to be binding internationally between the two coun- 
 tries. 
 
 It was also settled that in deciding the matters submitted to him the 
 Arbitrator should be governed by the foregoing rules, which had been 
 agreed upon as rules to be taken as applicable to the case, and by such 
 principles of International Law, not inconsistent therewith, as the Arbi- 
 trator should determine to have been applicable to the case. 
 
 The Joint High Commission then proceeded to consider the form of 
 submission and the manner of constituting a tribunal of arbitration. 
 
 At the conferences on the Gth, 8th, Oth, 10th, and 12th of April the 
 Joint High Commission considered and discussed the form of submis- 
 sion, the manner of the award, and the mode of selecting the Arbitra- 
 tors. 
 
 The American Commissioners, referring to the hope which they had 
 expressed on the 8th of March, inquired whether the British Commis- 
 sioners were prepared to i)lace upou record an expression of regret by 
 Her Majesty's Government for the depredations committed by the ves- 
 sels whose acts were now under discussion; and the British Commis- 
 sioners replied that they were authorized to express, in a friendly sjurit, 
 the regret felt by Her Majesty's Government for the escape, under what- 
 ever (drcumstances, of the Alabama and other vessels from British 
 ports, and for the depredations committed by those vessels. 
 
 The American Commissioners accepted this expression of regret as 
 very satisfactory to them and as a token of kindness, and said that thej^ 
 i'elt sure it would be so received by the Government and people of the 
 United States. 
 
 In the conference on the 13th of April the Treaty Articles I to XI 
 were agreed to. 
 
 Articles XII to XVII. 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 At the conference on the 4th of March it was agreed to consider the 
 subjects referred to the Joint High Commission by the respective Gov- 
 ern ujeuts in the order in which they api)eared in the correspondence 
 between Sir Edward Thornton and Mr. Fish, and to defer the considera- 
 tion of the adjustment of "all other claims, both of 'British subjects and 
 citizens of the United States, arising out of acts committed during the 
 rtcent civil war in this country," as described by Sir Edward Thornton 
 
uers had 
 
 ;e to pre- 
 n, of any 
 cruise or 
 [so to use 
 ny vessel 
 iug been 
 o warlike 
 
 ke use of 
 
 other, or 
 
 ipplies or 
 
 s, and as 
 on of the 
 
 ins should 
 :wo couu- 
 
 o him the 
 had beeu 
 d by such 
 the Arbi- 
 
 e for III of 
 
 ■ation. 
 
 April the 
 
 f subinis- 
 
 Arbitra- 
 
 they had 
 Com mis- 
 egret by 
 
 y the ves- 
 Commis- 
 
 dly spirit, 
 der what- 
 
 tu British 
 
 regret as 
 that they 
 pie of the 
 
 5S I to XI 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 309 
 
 Qsider the 
 tive Gov- 
 jpoudeuce 
 considera- 
 ^ cts and 
 uring the 
 Thoruton 
 
 in his letter of Febrnnry 1, until the subjects referred to in the p evious 
 letters should have been disposed of. 
 
 Tlie American Commissioners said that they sup])osed that thej* were 
 right in tlieir opinion that British laws prohibit British subjects from 
 owning slaves ; they therefore inquired whether any claims for slaves, or 
 for alleged i)roperty or interest in slaves, can or will be presented by 
 the ]>ritish Government, or in behalf of any British subject, under the 
 Treaty now being negotiated, if there be in the Treaty no express words 
 excluding such claims. 
 
 The British Commissioners replied that by the law of England Brit- 
 ish subjects had long been prohibited from purchasing or dealing iu 
 slaves^, not only within the dominions of the British Crown but in any 
 foreign country ; and that they had no hesitation in saying that no claim 
 on behalf of any British subject, for slaves or for any property or inter- 
 est in slaves, would be presented by the British Government. 
 
 Referring to the paragraph in Sir Edward Thornton's letter of Janu- 
 ary liO, relating to " the mode of settling the ditt'erent questions which 
 have arisen out of the Fisheries, as well as all those which allect the 
 relations of the United States towards Her Majesty's Possessions in 
 North America," the British Commissioners proposed that the Joint High 
 Commission should consider the claims for injuries which the people of 
 Canada had sntfered from what Avere known as the Fenian raids. 
 
 The American Commissioners objected to this, and it was agreed that 
 the subject might be brought np again by the British Commissioners in 
 connection with the subject referred to bj' Sir Edward Thornton in his 
 letter of February 1 . 
 
 At the conference on the 14th of April the Joint High Commission 
 took into consideration the subjects mentioned by Sir Edward Thornton 
 iu that letter. 
 
 The British Commissioners proposed that a Commission for the con- 
 sideration of these claims should be .appointed, and that the Convention 
 of 1853 should be followed as a precedent. Tliis was agreed to, except 
 that it was settled that there should be a third Commissioner instead of 
 an Umpire. 
 
 At the conference on the 15th of April the Treaty Articles XII to 
 XVII were agreed to. 
 
 At the conference on the 2Gth of April the British: Commissioners 
 again brought before the Joint High Commission the claims of the 
 people of Canada for injuries suffered from the Fenian raids. They said 
 that they were instructed to present these claims and to stiite that they 
 were regarded by Her Majesty's Government as coming within the class 
 of subjects indicated by Sir Edward Thornton iu his letter of January 
 20, as subjects for the consideration of the Joint High Commission. 
 
 The American Commissioners replied that they were instructed to say 
 that the Government of the United States did not regard these clain^s 
 as coming within the class of subjects indicated in that letter as subjects 
 for the consideration of the Joint High Commission, and that they were 
 without any authority from their Government to consider them. They 
 therefore declined to do so. 
 
 The British Commissioners stated that, as the subject was understood 
 not to be within the scope of the instructions of the American Commis- 
 sioners, they must refer to their Government for further instructions 
 upon it. 
 
 At the conference on.the"8d of May the British Commissioners stated 
 that they were ins^tructed by their Government to express their regret 
 that the Americau Commissioners were without authority to deal with 
 
400 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 tlie question of the Fenian raids, and they inquired wlietliei- that was 
 still the case. 
 
 The American Commissioners replied that they could see no reason 
 to vary the reply formerly {>iven to this proposal ; tlu'^ in their view the 
 subject was not embraced in the scope of the co spoiidence between 
 Sir Edward Thornton and Mr. Fish under e'tuer of the letters ot the 
 former; and that they did not feel justified in entering upon the consid- 
 eration of any class of claims not contemplated at the time of the crea- 
 tion of the present Commission, and that the claims now referred to did 
 not commend themselves to their favor. 
 
 The British High Commissioners said that under these circumstances 
 they would not urge further that the settlement of these claims should 
 be in(!luded in the present treaty, and that they ha 1 the less difticulty 
 in doing so, as a portion of the claims were of a constructive and infer- 
 ential character. 
 
 Articles XVIII to XXV. 
 
 r^i 
 
 i 
 'i 
 
 At the conference on the 6th of March the British Commissioners 
 stated that they were prepared to discuss the question of tlie Fisheries, 
 either in detail or generally, so as either to enter into an examination 
 of the resi>ective rights of the two countries under the Tieaty of 1818 
 and the general law of nations, or to approach at once the settlement of 
 the question on a comprehensive basis. 
 
 The American Commissioners said that with the view of avoiding the 
 discussion of matters which subsequent negotiation might render it un- 
 necessary to enter into, they thought it would be preferable to adopt 
 the latter course, and inquired what, in that case, would be the basis 
 which the British Commissioners desired to propose. 
 
 The British Commissioners replied that they considered that the Re- 
 ciprocity Treaty of June 5, 1854, should be restored in principle. 
 
 The American Commissioners declined to assent to a renewal of the 
 former reciprocity treaty. 
 
 The British Commissioners then suggested that, if any considerable 
 modification were inade in the tariff arrangements of that Treaty, the 
 coasting trade of the United States and of Her Britannic Majesty's 
 Possessions in JSTorth America should be reciprocally thrown oi)en, and 
 that the luivigation of the Itiver Saint Lawrence and of the Canadian 
 Canals should be also throAvu open to the citizens of the United States 
 on terms of equality with British subjects. 
 
 The American Commissioners declined this proposal, and objected to 
 a negotiation on the basis of the Reciprocity Treaty. They said that 
 that Treaty bad proved imsatisfactory to the people of the United States, 
 and consequently had been terminated by notice from the Government 
 of the United States, in pursuance of its provisions. Its renewal was 
 not in their interest, and would not be in accordance with the senti 
 ments of their people. They further said that they were not at liberty 
 to treat of the opening of the coasting trade of tlie United States to 
 the subjects of Her Majesty residing in her Possessions in North Amer- 
 ica. It was agreed that the (luestions relating to the navigation of the 
 River Saint Lawrence, and of the Can.adian Canals, and to other com- 
 iriercial questions affecting Canada, should be treated by themselves. 
 
 The subject of the Fisheries was further discussed at the conferences 
 on the 7th, 20th, 22d, and 25th of March. The American Co'.iinissioners 
 stated that if the value of the inshore fisheries could be ascertained, the 
 United States might prefer to puruhase, for a sum of money, the right 
 
r that was 
 
 ! no n^asoii 
 ir view tlie 
 ;c betweiMi 
 ters ot tlie 
 tlic con si d- 
 f tlie Clea- 
 ned to did 
 
 ninistances 
 
 iius shonld 
 
 s diliicnlty 
 
 and int'er- 
 
 K"i?ri 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 401 
 
 imissioners 
 ', Fisheries, 
 vainination 
 ity of IS 18 
 ttlenient of 
 
 voiding the 
 Mider it nn- 
 e to adopt 
 i the baisis 
 
 liat the Re- 
 iph'. 
 'Aval of the 
 
 msidevable 
 
 L'leaty, the 
 
 IMaJesty's 
 
 open, and 
 
 Canadian 
 
 ted Stales 
 
 ►bjected to 
 said that 
 ted States, 
 overnnient 
 newal was 
 the senti 
 at liberty 
 States to 
 nth Anier- 
 tion of the 
 )ther coiu- 
 n selves, 
 onferences 
 niissionei's 
 tained,the 
 , the light 
 
 to enjoy, in perpetnity, the use of these inshore fisheries in common with 
 British fishermen, and mentioned one million dollars as the snm they 
 were prepared to offer. The British Comiiii^ssioners replied that this 
 offer was, they thought, wholly inadequate, and that no arrangement 
 would be acceptable of which the admission into the Unit<'d States free 
 of dut3' of fish, the produce of the British fisheries, did not form a part, 
 adding that any arrangement for the acquisition by purchase of the in- 
 shore fisheries in perpetuity was open to grave objection. 
 
 The American Commissioners inquired whether it would be necessary 
 to refer any arrangement for purchase to the Colonial or Provincial Tar- 
 liament. 
 
 The British Commissioners explained that the Fisheries within the 
 limits of maritime jurisdictiou were the property of the several British 
 Colonies, and that it would be necessary to refer any arrangement which 
 might affect Colonial property or rights to the Colonial or Provincial 
 Parliament; and that legislation would also bo required on the part of 
 the Imperial Parliament. 
 
 During these discussions the British Commissioners contended that 
 these inshore fisheries were of great value, and that the most satisfac- 
 torj'^ arrangement for their use would be a reciprocal tariff arrangement, 
 and reciprocity in the coasting trade; aud the American Commissioners 
 replied that their value was overestimated ; that tlf United States 
 desired to secure their enjoyment, not for their commercial or intrinsic 
 value, but for the purpose of removing a source of irritation ; and that 
 they could hold out no hope that the Congress of the United States 
 would give its assent to such a tariff arrangement as was proposed, 
 or to any extended plan of reciprocal free admission of the products of 
 the two countries; but that, inasmuch as one branch of Congress had 
 recently, more than once, expressed itself in favor of the abolition of 
 duties on coal and salt, they would propose that coal, salt, and fish be 
 reciprocally admitted free; and, that, inasmuch as Congress had re- 
 moved the duty from a portion of the lumber heretofore subject to duty, 
 and as the tendency of legislation in the United States was toward the 
 reduction of taxation and of duties in proportion to the reduction of the 
 public debt and expenses, they would further propose that lumber be ad- 
 mitted free from duty from and after the first of July, 1874, subject to 
 the approval of Congress, which was necessary on all questions affecting 
 import duties. 
 
 The British Commissioners, at the conference on the 17th of April, 
 stated that they had referred this offer to their Government, and were 
 Instructed to inform the American Commissioners that it was regarded 
 as inadequate, and that Uar Majesty's Government considered that free 
 lumber should be granted at once, aud that the proposed tariff" conces- 
 sions should be supplemented by a money payment. 
 
 The American Commissioners then stated that they withdrew the 
 proposal which they had previously made of the reciprocal free admis- 
 sion of coal, salt, and fish, and of lumber after July 1, 1874; that that 
 proposal had been made entirely in the interest of a peaceful settlement, 
 and for the purpose of removing a source of irritation and of anxiety ; 
 that its value had been beyond the commercial or intrinsic value of the 
 rights to have been acquired in return ; and that they could not con- 
 sent to an arrangement on the basis now proposed by the British Com- 
 missioners ; .and they renewed their proposal to pay a money equivalent 
 for the use of the inshore fisheries. They further proposed that, in case 
 the two Governments should not be able to agree upon the sum to be 
 paid as such an equivalent, the matter shonld be referred to an impartial 
 Gommission for determinatioD. 
 26 u 
 
402 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 m ; 
 
 
 
 'is 'l 
 
 I: ^-^ 
 
 III 
 
 
 Pi i 
 
 Tl)o British Commissioners replied tliat this proposal was one on which 
 they had no instructions, and that it won!'! not be jjossible for them to 
 come to any arrangement ex(!ept one for a term of years and involving 
 the concession of free iish and fish-oil by the American Commissioners ; 
 but that if free fish and fish-oil were conceded, they would inquire of 
 their (Jovernment whether they were prepared to assent to a reference 
 to arbitration as to money payment. 
 
 Tlie American Commissioners replied that they were willing, subject 
 to the action of Congress, to concede free fish and fish-oil as an equiva- 
 lent for the use of the inshore fisheries, and to make the arrangement 
 for a term of years ; that they were of the opinion that free fish and Hsh- 
 oil would be more than an equivalent for those fisheries, but that they 
 were also willing to agree to a reference to determine that question and 
 the amount of an^^ money payment that might be found necesssary to 
 complete an equivalent, it being understood that legislation would be 
 needed before any payment could be made. 
 
 The subject was further discussed in the conferences of April 18 and 
 19, and the liritish Commissioners having referred the last proposal to 
 their Government and received instructions to accept it, the Trenty Ar- 
 ticles XVIII to XXV were agreed to at the conference on the li'2<l of 
 April. 
 
 Articles XXVI to XXXIII. 
 
 At the conference on the Gth of March the British Commissioners pro- 
 posed that tlie Reciprocity Treaty of June 5, 1854, should be restored in 
 principle, and that, if any considerable modifications in the tariff arrange- 
 ments in force under it were made, the coasting trade of the United 
 States and of Her Britannic Majesty's Possessions in North America 
 should be reciprocally thrown open, and that the navigation of the 
 River St. Lawrence and of the Canadian Canals should be thrown open 
 to the citizens of the United States on terms of equality with British 
 subjects. 
 
 The American Commissioners declined this proposal, and in the sub- 
 sequent negotiations the question of the Fisheries was treated by itself. 
 
 At the conference on the 17th of March the eJoint High Commission 
 considered the subject of the American improvement of the navigation 
 of the Saint Clair F];i\j8. 
 
 At the conference on the 18th of March the questions of the naviga- 
 tion of the River Saint Lawrence and the Canals and the other subjects 
 connected therewith were taken up. 
 
 The American Commissioners proposed to take into consideration 
 the question of transit of goods in bond through Canada and the United 
 States, which was agreed to. 
 
 The Britistt Commissioners proposed to take into consideration the 
 question of opening the coasting trade of the lakes reciprocally to each 
 party, which was declined. 
 
 On the proposal of the British CommissionerH it was agreed to take 
 the question of transshipment into consideration. 
 
 The British Commissioners proposed to take into consideration the 
 reciprocal registration of vessels, as between the Dominion of Canada 
 and the United States, which was declined. 
 
 At the conference on the 23d of March the transshipment question 
 was discussed, and postponed for further information, on the motion of 
 the American Commissioners. 
 
 The transit question was discussed, and it was agreed that any settle- 
 
le on wliich 
 for tluMu to 
 I involving 
 nissioners ; 
 inqnire of 
 a reference 
 
 ing, subject 
 an equiva- 
 L-rangeinent 
 sh an«l fish- 
 it that they 
 iiestion and 
 icesssary to 
 )u would be 
 
 Lpril 18 and 
 j)ropo8al to 
 Treaty Ar- 
 
 L the !i2d of 
 
 sioners pro- 
 restored in 
 ritt'arrange- 
 the United 
 th America 
 tion of the 
 hrown open 
 rith British 
 
 in the sub- 
 lhI by itself. 
 Uomuiission 
 
 navigation 
 
 the naviga- 
 ier subjects 
 
 msideratiou 
 the United 
 
 leration the 
 illy to each 
 
 •eed to take 
 
 leration the 
 of Canada 
 
 it question 
 .6 motion of 
 
 ; any settle- 
 
 GKXKRAL APPENDIX. 
 
 403 
 
 went that might be made should include a reciprocal arnuigemont in 
 tliat respect for the period tor wijich the Fishery articles should be in 
 forcic. 
 
 The question of the navigation of the River Saint Lawrence and the 
 Canals was taken up. 
 
 The British Commissioners stated that they regarded the concession 
 of the navigation of Lake Michigan as an equivalent for the concestiion 
 of the navigation of the River Saim La\vreiu;e. 
 
 As to the Canals they stated that tiie concession of the privilege to 
 navigsite them in their present condition, on terms of ecjuality with 
 British subjects, was a much greater concession than the corresponding 
 use of the Canals ottered by tl«e United States. 
 
 They further said that the enlargement of the Canals would involve 
 the expenditure of a large amount of money, and they asked what 
 equivalent the American Commissioners i)roi)osed to give for the sur- 
 render of the right to control the tolls for the use of the Canals, either 
 in their i)resent state or after enlargement. 
 
 The American Commissioners replied, that unless the Welland Canal 
 should be enlarged so as to accommodate the present course of trade, 
 they shoidd not be disposed to make any concessions ; that in their 
 opinion the citizens of tbe United States could now justly claim to nav- 
 igate the River St. Lawrence in its natural state, ascending and descend- 
 ing, from the forty-tifth parallel of north latitude, where it ceases to 
 form the boundary between the two countries, from, to, and into tin' 
 sea; and they could not concede that the navigation of Lake Michigan 
 should be given or taken us an ecpiivalent for that right ; and they 
 thought that the concession of the navigation of Lake Michigan and of 
 the Canals offered by them was more than an equivalent for the conches 
 sions as to the Canadian Canals which were asked. They proposed, in 
 connection with a reciprocal arrangement as to transit and transshij) 
 ment, that Canada should agree to enlarge the Welland and St. Law- 
 rence Canals, to make no discriminating tolls, and to limit the tolls to 
 rates sufficient to maintftin the Canals, pay a reasonable interest on the 
 cost of constiuctiou and enlargement, and raise a sinking-fund for the 
 rei)aying, within a reasonable time, the cost of enlargenient ; and that 
 the navigation of the River St. Lawrence, the Canadian Canals, the 
 Canals ottered by the United States, and Lake Michigan should be en- 
 joyed reciprocally by citizens of the United States and by British sub- 
 jects. This proposal was declined by the British Commissioners, who 
 repeated that they did not regard the equivalent offered by the United 
 States as at all commensurate with the concessions asked from Great 
 Britain. 
 
 At the conference on the 27th of March the proposed enlargement of 
 the Canadian Canals was further discussed. It was stated on the part 
 of the British Commissioners that the Canadian Government were now 
 considering the expediency of enlarging the capacity of the Canals on 
 the River St. Lawrence, and had already provided for the enlargement 
 of the Welland Canal, which would be undertaken without delay. 
 
 The subject of the export duty in New Brunswick on American lumber 
 floated down the River St. John, was proposed for consideration by the 
 American Commissioners. 
 
 At the conference on the 23d of April the British Commissioners pro- 
 posed that the navigation of Lake Michigan should be given in exchange 
 for the navigation of the River St. Lawrence ; and that Her Majesty's 
 Government should agree to urge upon the Dominion of Canada to give 
 to the citizens of the United States tbe use of the Canadian Canals on 
 
404 
 
 GKNERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 i 
 
 2*. V 
 
 i 
 
 tortus of oqualify witli British subjects; and that the Govoriiinciitof the 
 United States should agree to urga upon the several States to give to 
 British subjects the use of the several State Caiuils on terms of e«iuality 
 with citi/eusof the United States. Tiiey also proposed, as part of the 
 arrangement, a reciprocal agreement as to transit and transshipment, 
 and that the Government of Great Britain should urge upon New 
 Brunswick not to impose export duties on the luujber floated down the 
 River St. John for shipment to the United States. 
 
 The American Commissioners repeated their views as to the navigation 
 of the Kiver St. Lawrence in its natural state. 
 
 The British Commissioners replied that they could not admit the 
 claims of American citizens to navigate the Kiver St. Lawrence as of 
 right; but that the British Government had no desire to exclude them 
 from it. They, however, pointed out that there Avere certain rivers run- 
 ning through Alaska which should on like grounds be declared free and 
 oi)en to British subjects, in case the Kiver St. Lawrence should be de- 
 clared free. 
 
 The American (Commissioners replied that they were prepared to 
 consider that question. They aV^o assented to the arrangement as to 
 the canals, which was proposed by the British Commissioners, limiting 
 it, as regarded American Canals, to the canals connected with the navi- 
 gation of the lakes or rivers traversed by or contiguous to the boundary- 
 line between the British and American possessions. They likewise 
 agreed to give the right of navigating Lake Michigan for a term of 
 years. They desired, and it was irgreed, that the tran8shii)ment ar- 
 rangement should be made dep'jndent ui)on the nonexistence of dis- 
 criminating tolls or regulations on the Canadian Canals, and also upon 
 the abolition of the New Brunswick export duty on American lumber 
 intended for the United States. It w as also agreed that the right of 
 carrying should be made dependent upon the non-imposition of export 
 duties on either side on the goods of the other party passing in transit. 
 
 The discussion of these subjects was further continued at the confer- 
 ences of the 24th, 25th, and 26tli of April, and the Treaty Articles XXVI 
 to XXXIII were agreed to at the conference on the 3d of May. 
 
 In the course of these discussions the British Commissioners called 
 attention to the question of the survey of the boundary-line along the 
 forty-ninth parallel, which still remained unexecuted from the Lake of 
 the Woods to the Rocky Mountains, and to which reference had been 
 made in the President's Message. 
 
 The American Commissioners stated that the survey was a matter for 
 administrative action, and did not require to be dealt with by a treaty 
 provision. The United States Government would be prepared to agree 
 with the British Government for the appointment of a boundary survey 
 commission in the same manner as had been done in regard to the 
 remainder of the boundary along the forty-ninth parallel as soon as the 
 legislative appropriations and other necessary arrangements could be 
 made. 
 
 Articles XXXIV to XLIL 
 
 At the conference on the 15th of March the British Commissioners 
 stated that it was proposed that day to take up the Northwest water- 
 boundary question ; that the difference was one of long standing, which 
 had more than once been the subject of negotiations between the two 
 Governments, and that the negotiators had, in January, 1869, agreed 
 upon a treaty. They then pioposed that an arbitration of this question 
 should be made upon the basis of the provisions of that Treaty. 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 405 
 
 iiciit of the 
 to give to 
 )f equality 
 nut of tlie 
 (Hhipinunt, 
 ipoii New 
 [ dowu the 
 
 javigiitioii 
 
 admit the 
 eiice as of 
 jhule them 
 rivers run- 
 Mi free and 
 lUd bo de- 
 
 repared to 
 luent as to 
 I's, limiting 
 h the navi- 
 boundary- 
 y likewise 
 ■ a term of 
 ipment ar- 
 'uce of dia- 
 l also upon 
 ^an lumber 
 lie right of 
 of export 
 in trausit. 
 the coufer- 
 clesXXVI 
 
 lers called 
 along the 
 
 le Lake of 
 had been 
 
 matter for 
 )y a treaty 
 
 to agree 
 ary survey 
 ard to the 
 oon as the 
 
 could be 
 
 tnissioners 
 'est water- 
 ing, which 
 a the two 
 B9, agreed 
 9 question 
 ty. 
 
 The American Comnjiasionera replied that, though no formal vote 
 was actually taken upon it, it was well understood that that Treaty had 
 not been favorably regarded by the Senate. They declined the i>roposal 
 of the British CommiNsioners, and expressed their Mish that an eftbrt 
 should be made to settle the (question in the Joint High Commission. 
 
 The British Commissioners assented to this, and presented the rea- 
 sons which induced them to regard the llosario Straits as the channel 
 contemplated by the Treaty of June 15, 1846. 
 
 The American Commissioners replied, and presented the reasons which 
 induced them to regard the Haro Channel as the channel contemplated 
 by tliat Treaty. They also produced in support of their views some 
 original correspondence of Mr. Everett with his Government, which 
 had not been alluded to in previous discussions of the question. 
 
 The British Commissioners replied that they saw in that correspond- 
 ence no reason to induce them to change the o])inion which they had 
 previously expressed. They then asked whether the American Commis- 
 sioners had any further proposal to make. 
 
 The American Commissioners replied that, in vie\7 of the position 
 taken by the British Commissioners, it appeared that the Treaty of 
 June 15, 1846, might have been made under a mutual raisundt^rstand- 
 ing, and would not have been made had each party understood at that 
 time the construction which the other party puts upon the language 
 whose interpretation is in dispute ; they therefore proposed to abrogate 
 the whole of that part of the Treaty, and re-arrange the boundary-line 
 which was in dispute before that Treaty was concluded. 
 
 The British Commissioners replied that the proposal to abrogate a 
 treaty was one of a serious character, and that they had no instructions 
 which would enable them to entertain it ; and at the conference on the 
 20th of March the British Commissioners declined the proposal. 
 
 At the conference on the 19th of April the British Commissioners 
 proposed to the American Commissioners to adopt the Middle Channel 
 (generally known as the Douglas Channel) as the channel through which 
 the boundary-line should be run, with the understanding that all the 
 channels through the Archipelago should be free and common to both 
 parties. 
 
 The American Commissioners declined to entertain that proposal. 
 Thej' proposed that the Joint High Commission should recognize the 
 Haro Channel as the channel intended by the Treaty of June 15, 1840, 
 with a mutual agreement that no fortifications should be erected by 
 either party to obstruct or command it, and with proper provisions as 
 to any existing proprietary rights of British subjects in the island of 
 San Juan. 
 
 The British Commissioners declined this proposal, and stated that, 
 being convinced of the justice of their view of the Treaty, they could 
 not abandon it except after a fair decision by an impartial arbitrator. 
 They therefore renewed their proposal for a reference to arbitration, 
 and hoped that it would be seriously considered. 
 
 The American Commissioners replied that they had hoped that their 
 last proposal would be accepted. As it had been declined, they would, 
 should the other questions between the two Governments be satisfactorily 
 adjusted, agree to a reference to arbitration to determine whether the 
 line should run through the Haro Channel or through the liosario 
 Straits, upon the condition that either Government should have the 
 right to include in the evidence to be considered by the Arbitrator such 
 documents, official correspondence, and other ofiicial or public state- 
 ments, bearing on the subject of the reference, as they may consider 
 
406 
 
 OENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 U si' 
 
 iK'coHSjiry to the support of thoir roapectivo ciises. This condition was 
 agreed to. 
 
 Tlie liriti^h Commissioners proposed that tlie Arbitrator Rhould have 
 the ri^ht to draw the boundary throiigli an intermediate cliannoh The 
 Airierican Commissioners declined this proposal, stating that they de- 
 sired a decision, not a com])roniise. 
 
 The British Commissioners proposed that it slionid be declared to be 
 the proper construction of the Treaty of 184(i that all the channels were 
 to be open to navi^^ation by both parties. The Anierican Connnissioners 
 stated that they did not so construe the Treaty of 18i(>, and therefore 
 could not assent to such a declaration. 
 
 The discussion of this subject was continued dnring this conference, 
 and in the conference of the 22d of April the Treaty Articles XXXIV 
 to XLII were a}>reed to. 
 
 The Joint Iliyh Commissioners approved this statement, and directed 
 it to be entered in the protocol. 
 The conference was adjourned to the Cth of Mav. 
 
 j. c. bancroft davis. 
 tentp:uden. 
 
 XXXVII.— PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSION- 
 ERS OX THE PART OF THF UNITED STATES OF AMlHilCA AND THE 
 HIGH COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 AVashington, May G, 1871. 
 
 The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference 
 held on the 4th of May was read an<l confirmed. 
 
 Lord de Grey said, that as the Joint High Commission would not 
 meet again after to-day. except for the purpose of signing the Treaty, 
 he desired, on behalf of himself and his colleagues, to express their high 
 appreciation of the manner in which Mr. Fish and his Anterictiu col- 
 leagues had, on their side, conducted the negotiations. It had been 
 most gratifying to the British Commissioners to be jissociated with col- 
 leagues who were animated with the same sincere desire as themselves 
 to bring about a settlement, equally honorable and just to both countries, 
 of the various questions of which it had been their duty to treat, and 
 the British Commissioners would always retain a grateful recollection of 
 the fair and friendly spirit which the Imericau Commissioners had dis- 
 played. 
 
 Mr. Fish, in behalf of the Aijif vican Commissioners, said that they 
 ■were gratefully sensible of the friendly words expressed by Lord de 
 Grey, and of the kind spirit which had prompted them. From the date 
 of the tirst conference the American Commissioners had been impressed 
 by the earnestness of desire manifested by the British Conunissioners 
 to reach a settlement Avorthy of the two Powers who had committed to 
 this Joint High Commission the treatment of various questions of pecu- 
 liar interest, complexity, and delicacy. His colleagues and he could 
 never cease to appreciate the generous spirit, and the open and friendly 
 manner in which the British Commissioners had met and discussed the 
 several questions that had led to the conclusion of a Treaty which it 
 was hoped would receive the approval of the people of both countries, 
 and would prove the foundation of a cordial and friendly understand- 
 ing between them for all time to come. 
 
GENERAL API'KXUIX. 
 
 407 
 
 lition wa8 
 
 [)iild lirtve 
 iiol. The 
 [ they de- 
 
 ired to be 
 mels were 
 liHsioiiers 
 tlieiofore 
 
 inference, 
 I X XXIV 
 
 1 directed 
 
 )AVIS. 
 
 VIMISSION- 
 AND THE 
 
 G, 1871. 
 lonfereiice 
 
 vouUl nob 
 le Treaty, 
 their hi^h 
 ricau col- 
 ad been 
 with col- 
 jeinselves 
 countries, 
 Teat, and 
 lection of 
 had dis- 
 
 Mr. Fish fnrthor said that ho was sure tiiut every nu'inlH-r of the 
 Joint Ili^h Commission wonhl desire to record liis a|>|i|re('iatii)n of the 
 ability, the zeal, and tiie nnc(>asin^ hibor whicli the floint Protocolists 
 had <>.\liibited in the discharge of tiieir arduous ami responsible duties, 
 and that he knew that he only yave expression to the teelinjjs of the 
 Commissi(»ner8 in saying that Lord Teiitcrden and Mr. l^ancrot't J)avis 
 were entitled to, and were requesti'd to accept the thanks of, the Joint 
 Iligli Commission for their valuable services, and the ^^reat assistance 
 which they had rendered with unvarying obligin^^ness to the Commis- 
 sion. 
 
 Lord de Grey replied, on behalf of the British Commissioners, that he 
 and his colleagnes most coriially concnrred in the proposal made by 
 Mr. Fish tlnit the thanks of the Joint High Commission should be ten- 
 dered to Mr. Bancroft Davis and Lord Tenterden for their valuable 
 services as Joint Protocolists. Tiie British Commissioners were also 
 fnll as sensible as their American colleagues of the great advantage 
 which the Commission had derived from the assistance which those gen- 
 tlemen had given them ni the conduct of the important negotiations in 
 which they had been engaged. 
 
 Monday, the 8th of Mav, was appointed for the signatures of the 
 Treaty. 
 
 J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 
 TE>^TEUDEN. 
 
 that they 
 Lord de 
 the date 
 nipressed 
 lissioners 
 uiitted to 
 s of pecu- 
 he could 
 3 friendly 
 ussed the 
 which it 
 countries, 
 derstaud- 
 
 f 
 
OHHI 
 
 VI.-TREATY OF WASHINGTON, MAY 8, 1871. 
 
 

 It 
 
 I' 
 
 VI.— TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN FOR THE 
 SETTLEMENT OF PENDING QUESTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES, 
 CONCLUDED AT WASHINGTON, ON THE Sxii OF MAY, 1^71 ; RATIFICATION 
 ADVISED BY THE SENATE MAY 24, 1871 ; RATIFIED BY THE PRESIDENT 
 MAY 25, 1871; RATIFICATIONS EXCHANGED AT LONDON TUNE 17, 18715 
 PROCLAIMED JULY 4, 1871. 
 
 The United States of America and Her Britannic Majesty, being 
 desirous to provide for an amicable settlement of all causes of differ- 
 ence between the two countries, have for that purpose appointed their 
 resi)eutive Plenipotentiaries, that is to say : the President of the United 
 States has ap[)ointed on the part of the IJnited States as Commission- 
 ers in a Joint High Commission and Plenipotentiaries, Hamilton Fish, 
 Secretary of State ; Kober^ Cumming Schenck, Envoy Extraordinary 
 and Minister PIeni;>otentiary to Great Britain ; Samuel Nelson, an Asso- 
 ciate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States ; Ebenezer 
 Rockwood Hoar, of Massachusetts ; and George Henry Williams, of 
 Oregon ; aiul Her Britannic Majesty on her part has appointed as her 
 Higli Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries, the Kight Hcmora >U^ 
 George Frederick Samuel, Earl de Grey and Earl of Itipon, ^'i < > v., 
 Godeiich, Baron Grantham, a Baronet, a Peer of the United Kii^.^ ijui. 
 Lord President of Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Counci"., 
 Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, etc., etc. ; the Bight 
 Honorable Sir Stattbrd Henry Northcote, Baronet, one of Her Majesty's 
 Most Honorable Privy Council, a Member of Parliament, a Compan- 
 ion of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath, etc., etc.; Sir Edward 
 Thornton, Knight Commander of the Most Honorable Order of the 
 Bath, Her Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary 
 to the United States of America; Sir John Alexander Macdonald, 
 Knight Commander of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath, a nieui- 
 ber of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada, and Minister of Justice 
 and Attorney-General of Her Majesty's Dominion of Canada ; and 
 Montague Bernard, Esquire, Chichele Professor of International Law 
 in the University of Oxford. 
 
 And tiie said Plenipotentiaries, after having exchanged their full 
 Powers, wiiich were fouiul to be in due aud proper form, have agreed to 
 and concluded the following Articles : 
 
 Article I. 
 
 Whereas diiferences Imve arisen between the Government of t'.ie 
 United States aud the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, ami still 
 exist, glowing out of the acts cotnmitted by the several vessels which 
 have given rise to the claims generically known as the "Alabama 
 claims ;" 
 
 And whereas Her Britannic Majesty has authorized Her High Com- 
 missioners and Plenipotentiaries to express, in a friendly spirit, t'." 
 regret felt by Her Majesty's Government for the escape, under w'f 
 ever circumstances, of the Alabama aud other vessels from British portts, 
 and for the depredations conunitted by those vessels : 
 
 Now, in order to remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the 
 part of the United States, and to provide for the speedy ^vttlemeut of 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 411 
 
 IN FOR THE 
 JOUM'RIES, 
 riFICATION 
 PRESIDENT 
 NE 17, 18715 
 
 L^sty, being 
 8 of ditfer- 
 >inted their 
 tlie United 
 onimission- 
 lilton Fisb, 
 :raoidinary 
 11, an Asso- 
 ; Ebenezer 
 ''illiams, of 
 ited as her 
 Honoia ibi 
 I, Vh^i n.nii. 
 Kin J,; .'.JIM, 
 y Couuci'., 
 the Kight 
 r Majesty's 
 [I Com pail" 
 ir Edward 
 ler of the 
 potentiary 
 lacdonald, 
 til, a luein- 
 of Justice 
 ada ; and 
 ional Law 
 
 their full 
 agreed to 
 
 such claims, which are not admitted by Her Britannic Majesty's Govern- 
 ment, the High Contracting Parties agree tiiat all the said claims, 
 growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid vessels and generically 
 known as the "Alabama claims," shall be referred to a Tribunal of Ar- 
 bitration to be composed of Ave Arbitrators, to be appointed in the fol- 
 lowing manner, that is to say : One shall be named by the President of 
 the United States; one shall be named by Her Britannic ]\Iajesty ; His 
 Majesty, the King of Italy, shall be requested to name one ; the Presi- 
 dent of the Swiss Confederation shall be requested to name one ; and 
 His Majesty, the Emperor of Brazil, shall be reipiested to name one. 
 
 In case of the death, absence, or incapacity to serve of any or either 
 of the said Arbitrators, or in the event of either of the said Arbitrators 
 omitting or declining or ceasing to act as such, the President of the 
 United States, or Her Britannic Majesty, or His Majesty the King of 
 Italy, or the Presirtent of the Swiss Confederation, or His]Majesty the 
 Emperor of Brazil, as the case may be, may forthwith name another 
 person to act as Arbitrator in the place and stead of the Arbitrator 
 originally named by such Head of a State. 
 
 And in the event of the refusal or omission for two months after re- 
 ceipt of the request from either of the High Contracting Parties of His 
 Majesty the King of Italy, or the President of the Swiss Confederation, 
 or His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, to name an Arbitrator either to 
 fill tiie original appointment or in the place of one who may have died, 
 be absent, or incapacitated, or who may omit, decline, or from any cause 
 cease to act as such Arbitrator, His Majesty the King of Sweden and 
 !Norw.ay shall be requested to name one or more persons, as the case 
 may be, to act as such Arbitrator or Arbitrators. 
 
 Article II. 
 
 The Arbitrators shall meet at Geneva, in Switzerland, at the earliest 
 convenient day after they shall liave been named, and shall proceed 
 impartially and carefully to examine and decide all (piestions that shall 
 be laid before them on the part of the Governments of the United 
 States and Her Britannic JNIajesty respectively. All questions con- 
 sidered by the Tribunal, including the final award, shall be decided by 
 f^ majority of all the Arbitrators. 
 
 Yj,\r\i of the High Contracting Parties shall also name one person to 
 iitt' nd the Tribunal as its agent to represent it generally in all matters 
 cu.M'cted witl\ the arbitration. 
 
 Article III. 
 
 3nt of t!ie 
 , and still 
 >els which 
 'Alabama 
 
 ligli Com- 
 ?pirit, t''." 
 ider w' vt 
 tish ports, 
 
 ins on the 
 Jemeut of 
 
 '} lie written or printed case of each of tlu two Parties, accompanied 
 by the documents, the oflicial correspondence, and other evidence on 
 wiii(!li each relies, shall be delivnvd in duj licate to each of the Arbi- 
 trators and to the agent !»f the othei ''arty as soon as may be after tiie 
 organization of the Tribunal, but within a period not exceeding six 
 months from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this Treaty. 
 
 Article IV. 
 
 Within four montlia after the deliverj'^ on both sides of the written or 
 printed case, either Party may, in like manner, deliver in duplicate to 
 each of the said Arbitrators, and to the agent of the other Party, a 
 
412 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 counter case and additional documents, correspondence, and evidence, 
 in reply to the case, documents, correspondence, and evidence so pre- 
 sented by the other Party. 
 
 The Arbitrators may, however, extend the time for delivering such 
 counter case, documents, correspondence, and evidence, when, in their 
 judgment, it becomes necessary, in consequence of the distance of the 
 place from which the evidence to be presented is to be procured. 
 
 If in the case submitted to the Arbitrators either Party shall have 
 specified or alluded to any repoi't or document in its own exclusive pos- 
 session without annexing a copy, such Party shall be bound, if the other 
 Party thinks proper to apply for it, to furnish that Party with a copy 
 thereof; and either Party may call upon the other, through the Arbi- 
 trators, to produce the originals or certified copies of any papers adduced 
 as evidence, giving in each instance such reasonable notice as the Arbi- 
 trators may require. 
 
 Article V. 
 
 It shall be the duty of the agent of each Party, within two months 
 after the expirat'on of the time limited for the delivery of the counter 
 case on both sidi . ' sliver in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators 
 and to the agent c. jther Party a written or printed argument show- 
 ing the points and re, ring to the evidence upon which his Government 
 relies ; and the Arbitrators may, if thty desire further elucidation with 
 regard to any point, require a written or printed statement or argument, 
 or oral argument by counsel upon it ; but in such case the other Party 
 shall be entitled to reply either orally or in writing as the case may be. 
 
 Article VI. 
 
 li f 
 
 In deciding the matters submitted to the Arbitrators they shall be 
 governed by t'je following three rules, which are agreed upon by the 
 High Contracting Parties as rules to be taken as applicable to the case, 
 and by such principles of International Law not inconsistent therewith 
 as the Arbitrators shall determine to have been applicable to the case. 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 RULES. 
 
 . A neutral Government is bound — 
 
 First, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equip- 
 ping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable 
 ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a 
 power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to pre- 
 vent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise 
 or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in 
 whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use. 
 
 Secondly, not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its 
 ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for 
 the purpos"^ of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or 
 arms, or thi recruitment of men. 
 
 Thirdly, to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, 
 as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the 
 foregoing obligations and duties. 
 
 Her Britannic Majesty has commanded her High Commissioners and 
 Plenipotentiaries to declare that Her Majesty's Government cannot as 
 sent to the foregoing rules as a statement of principles of Internationa 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 413 
 
 evidence, 
 e so pre- 
 
 rinjf auch 
 1, in tlieir 
 ice of the 
 
 BCl. 
 
 iiiill have 
 iisive pos- 
 the other 
 th a copy 
 the Arbi- 
 8 add need 
 the Arbi- 
 
 ''0 months 
 le counter 
 rbitrators 
 cut show- 
 vernment 
 ition with 
 irp^uinent, 
 ber Party 
 e may be. 
 
 shall be 
 
 m by the 
 
 the case, 
 
 ;herewith 
 
 the case. 
 
 or eqnip- 
 asonable 
 igainst a 
 to i)re- 
 to cruise 
 apted, iu 
 
 se of its 
 er, or for 
 jplies or 
 
 ers, and, 
 n of the 
 
 ners and 
 mnot as 
 nation a 
 
 Law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned in Arti- 
 cle I arose, but that Her Msijesty's Government, in order to evince its 
 desire of strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries 
 and of making satisfactory provision for the future, agrees that in de- 
 ciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those 
 claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's (jovernmeut 
 had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in these rules. 
 
 And the high contracting parties agree to observe these rules as be- 
 tween themselves iu future, and to bring them to the kiu)wledge of 
 other maritime powers, and to invite them to accede to them. 
 
 Artict.e vir. 
 
 The decision of the Tribunal shall, if possible, be made within three 
 months from the close of the argument on both sides. 
 
 It shall be made in writing and dated, and shall be signed by the 
 Arbitrators who may assent to it. 
 
 The said Tribunal shall first determine as to each vessel separately 
 whether Great Britain has, by any act or omission, failed to fultill any 
 of the duties set forth in the foregoing three rules, or recognized by the 
 principles of International Law not inconsistent with such rules, and 
 shall certify such fact as to each of the said vessels. In case the Tri- 
 bunal find that Great Britain has failed to fulfill any duty or duties as 
 aforesaid, it may, if it think proper, proceed to award a sum iu gross to 
 be paid by Great Britain to the United States for all the claims referred 
 to it ; and in such case the gross sum so awarded shall be i)uid in coin 
 by the Government of Great Britain to the Government of the United 
 States, at Washington, within twelve months after the date of the 
 award. 
 
 The award shall be in duplicate, one copy whereof shall be delivered 
 to the agent of the United States for his Government, and the other 
 copy shall be delivered to the agent of Great Britain for his Govern- 
 meut. 
 
 Article VIII. 
 
 Each Government shall pay its own agent and provide for the proper 
 remuneration of the counsel employed by it and of the Arbitrator 
 appointed by it, and for the expense of preparing and submitting its 
 case to the Tribunal. All other expenses connected with the arbitration 
 shall be defrayed by the two Governments in equal moieties. 
 
 Article IX. 
 
 The Arbitrators shall keep an accurate record of their proceedings, 
 ^nd may appoint and employ the necessary officers to assist them. 
 
 Article X. 
 
 In case the Tribunal finds that Great Britain has failed to fulfill any 
 duty or duties as aforesaid, and does not award a sum in gross, the 
 High Contracting Parties agree that a Board of Assessors shall be 
 appointed to ascertain and determine what claims are valid, and what 
 amount or amounts shall be paid by Great Britain to the United States 
 on account of the liability arising from such failure, as to each vessel, 
 according to the extent of such liability as decided by the Arbitrators. 
 
 The Board of Assessors shall be constituted as follows : One member 
 
lliT 
 
 I'i I 
 
 414 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 It! 
 
 If 
 
 'i 
 
 thereof slmll be named by the President of tlie United States, one 
 member therooi' shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty, and one 
 member thereof slia!! be nained by the Jtepresentative at Washington 
 of His Majesty the Kingf of Italy ; and in ease of a vacancy bapijening 
 from any cause it shall be filled in the same manner in which the ori- 
 ginal appointment was made. 
 
 As s'">n as possible after such nominations the Board of Assessors 
 shall bo organized in Washington, with power to hold their sittings 
 there, or in New York, or in Boston. The members thereof shall sever- 
 ally snbs(*ribe a solemn declaration that they will impartially and care- 
 fully exajnine and decide, to the best of their judgment and ac(.'ording 
 to justice and equity, all mutters submitted to them, and shall forth- 
 with proceed, under such rules and regulations as they may prescribe, 
 to the investigation of the claims which shall be presented to them by 
 the Government of the United States, and shall examine and decide 
 upon them in such order and manner as they may think proper, but 
 upon such evidence or information only as shall be furnished by or on 
 behalf of the Governments of Great Britain and of the United States, 
 respectively. They shall be bound to hear on each separate clain), if re- 
 quired, one person on behalf of each Government, as counsel or agent. 
 A majority of the Assessors in each case shall be sufticient for a decision. 
 
 The decision of the Assessors shall be given upon each claim in writing, 
 and sliall be signed by them respectively and dated. 
 
 Every claim shall be presented to the Assessors within six months 
 from tlu; day of their first meeting, but they may, for good cause shown, 
 extend tlie time for the presentation of any claim to a further period not 
 exceeding three months. 
 
 Tlie Assessors shall report to each Government, at or before the expi- 
 ration of one year from the date of their ttrst meeting, the amount of 
 claims de(;i<led by them up to the date of such report; if further claims 
 then vemaiu undecided, they shall make a further report at or oefore 
 the expiration of two years from tlie date of such lirst meeting ; and in 
 case any claims remaiu undetermined at that time, they shall make a 
 tiiial re[)()rt within a further period of six months. 
 
 The report or reports shall be made in duplicate, and one copy thereof 
 shall be di^livered to the Secretary of State of the United States; and 
 one copy thereof to the llepresentative of Her Britannic Majesty at 
 Washington. 
 
 All sums of money which may be awarded under this Article shall 
 be payable at Washington, in coin, within twelve months after the 
 delivery of each report. 
 
 The Board of Assessors may employ such clerks as they shall think 
 necessary. 
 
 The expenses of the Board of Assessors shall be borne equally by tno 
 two Governments, and paid from time to time, as may be found exi)edi- 
 ent, on the production of accounts certified by the Board. The remu- 
 neration of the Assessors shall also be paid by the two Governments in 
 equal moieties in a similar manner. 
 
 Article XI. 
 
 The High Contracting Parties engage to consider the result of the 
 proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration and of the Board of Assessors, 
 should such Board be appointed, as a full, perfect, and final settlement 
 of all the claims hereinbefore referred to ; and further engage that 
 every such claim, whether the same may or may not have been presented 
 
3tntos, one 
 r, and one 
 ^asliiiigtou 
 bappiMiitig 
 ich the ori- 
 
 ■ Assessors 
 \i\r sittings 
 duill sever- 
 y and eare- 
 l according 
 diall forth- 
 
 • prescribe, 
 to them by 
 and decide 
 |)ro[)er, but 
 ?d bv or on 
 ted States, 
 clain), if re- 
 i\ or agent, 
 •a decision. 
 [ in writing, 
 
 six montlis 
 use shown, 
 
 • period not 
 
 •e the expi- 
 amonnt of 
 ther claims 
 t or before 
 ig ; and in 
 all make a 
 
 >l>.v thereof 
 states; and 
 Majesty at 
 
 rticle shall 
 after the 
 
 hall think 
 
 illy by tuo 
 nd exi)edi- 
 The remu- 
 rnmeuts in 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 415 
 
 lilt of the 
 
 Assessors, 
 settlement 
 gage that 
 presented 
 
 to the notice of, made, preferred, or laid before the Tribunal or Board, 
 shall, from and after the conclusion of the proceedings of the Tribumil 
 or Hoanl, be considered and treated as Anally settled, barred, and thence- 
 forth inadmissible. 
 
 Article XII. 
 
 The High Contracting Parties agree that all claims on the part of 
 corporations, companies, or private individuals, citizens of the United 
 States, upon the Cxovernmeut of Her Kritannic Majesty, arising out of 
 acts committed against the persons or property of citizens of the United 
 States during the period between the thirteenth of Ai)ril, eighteen hun- 
 dred and sixty-one, and the ninth of April, eighteen hundn'd and sixty- 
 tive, inclusive, not being claims growing out of the acts of the vessels 
 referred to in Article I of this Treaty, and all claims, with the like ex- 
 ception, on the iiart of corporations, companies, or private individuals, 
 subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, upon the Government of the United 
 States, arising out of acts committetl against the persons or property 
 of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty during the sanie period, which 
 may have been presented to eitlier Gov^ernment for its interposition 
 with the otiier, and which yet remain unsettled, as well as any other such 
 claims which may be presented witlnn the time specified in Article XIV 
 of this Treaty, shall be referred to three Commissioners, to be appointed 
 in the following manner — that is to say : One Commissioner shall be 
 named by the President of the United States, one by Her Britannic 
 Majesty, and a third by the President of the United States and Her 
 Biitannic Majesty conjointly; and in case the third Commissioner shall 
 not have been so named witiiin a period of three months from the date 
 of the exchange of the ratitications of this Treaty, then the third Com- 
 missioner shall be named by tlie Kepresentative at Washington of His 
 Majesty the King of Spain. In case of the death, absence, or incapacity 
 of any Commissioner, or in the eveni of any Commissioner omitting or 
 ceasing to act, the vacancy shall be filled in the manner hereinbefore 
 provided for making the original appointment; the period of three 
 months in case of such substitution being calculated from the date of 
 the hapiiening of the vacancy. 
 
 The (Jommissioners so named shall meet at Washington at the earliest 
 convenient period after they have been respectively named; and sliall, 
 before proceeding to any business, make and subscribe a solemn declara- 
 tion that they will impartially and carefully examine and decide, to the 
 best of their judgment, and according to justice and equity, all such 
 claims as shall be laid before them on the part of the Governments of 
 the United States and of Her Britannic Majesty, respectively ; and such 
 declaration shall be entered on the record of their proceedings. 
 
 Article XIII. 
 
 The Commissioners shall then forthwith proceed to the investigation 
 of the claims which shall be presented to them. They shall investigate 
 and decide such claims in such order and such manner as they may 
 think proper, but upon such evidence or information only as shall be 
 furnished by or on behalf of the respective Gavernments. They 
 shall be bound to receive and consider all written documents or state- 
 ments which may be presented to them by or on behalf of the respect- 
 ive Governments in support of, or in ftuswer to, any claim, and to hear, 
 if required, one person on each side, on behalf of each Government, as 
 
 n 
 
 
416 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 
 h'v 
 
 S' 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 counsel or ajjent for such Government, on e.acli and every separate 
 claim. A majority of the CommissionerH shall be suthcient for iin award 
 in each case. The awtird shall be given upon each claim in writing, 
 and shall be signed by tiie Commissioners assenting to it. It shall be 
 competent for each Government to name one person to attend the Com- 
 nussion«n'.s as its agent to present and support claims on its behalf, and 
 to answer claims made upon it, and to represent it generally in all mat- 
 ters connected with the investigation and decision thereof. 
 
 The High Contracting Parties hereby engage to consider the decision 
 of the Commissioners as absolutely final and conclusive upon each claim 
 decided upon by them, and to give full effect to such decisions without 
 any objection, evasion, or delay whatsoever. 
 
 Article XIV. 
 
 Every claim shall be presented to the Commissioners within six 
 months from the day of their first meeting, unless in any case where 
 reasons for delay shall be established to the satisfaction of the Connnis- 
 sioners, and then, and in any such case, the period for presenting the 
 claim maybe extended by them to anytime not exceeding three months 
 longer. 
 
 The Commissioners shall be bound to examine and decide upon every 
 claim within two years from the day of their first meeting. It shall be 
 competent for the Commissioners to decide in each case whether any 
 claim has or has not been duly made, preferred, and laid before them, 
 either wholly or to any and what extent, according to the true intent 
 and meaning of this Treaty. 
 
 Article XV. 
 
 All sums of money which may be awarded by the Commissioners on 
 account of any claim shall be paid by the one Government to the other, 
 as the case may be, within twelve months after the date of the final 
 award, without interest, and without any deduction save as specified in 
 Article XVI of this Treaty. 
 
 Article XVI. 
 
 The Commissioners shall keep an accurate record, and correct minutes 
 or notes of all their proceedings, with the dates thereof, and may appoint 
 and employ a secretary, and any other necessary officer or officers, to 
 assist them in the transaction of the business which may come before 
 them. 
 
 Each Government shall pay its own Commissioner and agent or coun- 
 sel. All other expenses shall be defrayed by the two Governments in 
 equal moieties. 
 
 The whole expenses of the Commission, including contingent expenses, 
 shall be defrayed by a ratable deduction on the amount of the sums 
 awarded by the Commissioners, provided always that such deduction 
 shall not exceed the rate of five per cent, on the sums so awarded. 
 
 ♦ Article XVII. 
 
 The High Contracting Parties engage to consider the result of the 
 proceedings of this Commission as a full, perfect, and final settlement of 
 all such claims as are mentioned in Article XII of this Treaty upon either 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 417 
 
 separate 
 an iiwurd 
 
 I writing, 
 t sliiiU be 
 the Com- 
 ihiiW, and 
 
 II all mat- 
 
 3 decision 
 ach elaim 
 8 without 
 
 itliin six 
 Lse where 
 Connnis- 
 snting tlie 
 se months 
 
 [ion every 
 t shall be 
 ether any 
 ore them, 
 •ue intent 
 
 loners on 
 he other, 
 the final 
 ecifled in 
 
 minutes 
 V appoint 
 licers, to 
 11 e before 
 
 or coun- 
 meuts iu 
 
 xpenaes, 
 the sums 
 eduction 
 ed. 
 
 t of the 
 ement of 
 an either 
 
 Government; and further engage that every such claim, whether or not 
 the same may have been presented to the notice of, made, preferred, or^ 
 laid before the said Commission, shall, from and after the conclusion of 
 the proceedings of the said Commission, be considered and treated as 
 finally settled, barred, and thenceforth inadmissible. 
 
 Article XVIIl. 
 
 It is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that, in addition to the 
 liberty secured to the United States fishermen by the Convention between 
 the United States and Great Britain, signed at London on the 20th day 
 of October, 1818, of taking, curing, and drj'ing fish on certain coasts of 
 the British North American Colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of 
 the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her Brit- 
 annic Majesty, the liberty, for the term of years mentioned in Article 
 XXXIII of this Treaty, to take fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on 
 the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks, of the 
 Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Colony 
 of Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands thereunto adja- 
 cent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with per- 
 mission to land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also 
 upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and 
 curing their fish ; provided that, in so doing, they do not interfere with 
 the rights of private property, or with British fishermen, in the peace- 
 able use of any part of the said coasts in their occupancy for the same 
 purpose. 
 
 It is imderstood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to the 
 sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and all other fish- 
 eries in rivers and the mouths of rivers are hereby reserved exclusively 
 for British fishermen. 
 
 Article XIX. 
 
 It is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that British subjects 
 shall have, in common with the citizens of the United States, the lib- 
 erty, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this Treaty, 
 to take fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the eastern sea-coasts 
 and shores of the United States north of the thirty-ninth parallel of 
 north latitude, and on the shores of the several islands thereunto adja- 
 cent, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the said sea-coasts and 
 shores of the United States and of the said islands, without being 
 restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to land upon 
 the said coasts of the United States and of the islands aforesaid, for 
 the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish ; provided that, 
 in so doing, they do not interfere with the rights of private property, or 
 with the fishermen of the United States in the peaceable use of any 
 part of the said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose. 
 
 It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to the 
 sea-fishery, and that salmon and shad fisheries, and all other fisheries in 
 rivers and months of rivers are hereby reserved exclusively for fisher- 
 men of the United States. 
 
 Article XX. 
 
 It is agreed that the places designated by the Commissioners ap- 
 pointed under the first Article of the treaty between the United States 
 and Great Britain, concluded at Washington on the 5th of June, 1864, 
 27 H 
 
418 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 Pf 
 
 upon the coasts of Her Britannic Majesty's Dominions and tlie United 
 States, as places reserved from the common riglit of flshin;? under that 
 Treaty, shall be regarded as in like manner reserved from the common 
 right ot ilshing under the preceding Articles. In case any question should 
 arise between the Governments of the United States and of Her Britannic 
 Majesty as to the common right of fishing in places not thus designated 
 as reserved, it is agreed that a Commission shall be appointed to desig- 
 nate such places, and shall be constituted in the same manner, ana have 
 the same powers, duties, and authority as the Commission appointed 
 under the said first Article of the Treaty of the 5th of June, 1854. 
 
 Article XXI. 
 
 It is agreed that, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII 
 of this Treaty, fish-oil and fish of all kinds, (except fish of the Inland 
 lakes, and of the rivers falling into them, and except fish preserved in 
 oil,) being the produce of the fisheries of the United States, or of the 
 Dominion of Canada, or of Prince Edward's Island, shall be admitted 
 into each country, respectively, free of duty. 
 
 Article XXII. 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 Inasmuch as it is asserted by the Government of Her Britannic Maj- 
 esty that the privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States 
 under Article XVIII of this Treaty are of greater value than those 
 accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of this Treaty to the subjects of 
 Her Britannic Majesty, and this assertion is not admitted by the 
 Government of the United States, it is further agreed that Commis- 
 sioners shall be appointed to determine, having regard to the privileges 
 accorded by the United States to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, 
 as stated in Articles XIX and XXI of this Treaty, the amount of any 
 -compensation which, in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Govern- 
 ment of the United States to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty 
 in return for the privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States 
 under Article XVIII of this Treaty ; and that any sum of money which 
 the said Commissioners may so award shall be paid by the United States 
 Government, in a gross sum, within twelve months after such award 
 shall have been given. 
 
 Article XXIII. 
 
 The Commissioners referred to in the preceding Article shall be 
 appointed in the following manner — that is to say : One Commissioner 
 shall be named by the President of the United States, one by Her 
 Britannic Majesty, and a third by the President of the United States 
 and Her Britannic Majesty conjointly^ and in case the third Commis- 
 sioner shall not have been so named within a period of throe months 
 from the date when this article shall take effect, then the third Commis- 
 sioner shall be named by the Bepresentative at London of His Majesty 
 the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary. In case of the death, 
 absence, or incapacity of any Commissioner, or in the event of any Com- 
 missioner omitting or ceasing to act, the vacancy shall be filled in the 
 manner hereinbefore provided for making the original appointment, the 
 period of three months in case of such substfitution being calculated 
 from the date of the happening of the vacancy. 
 
 The Commissioners s«> named shall meet in the City of Halifax, in 
 
GEXKRAL APPENDIX. 
 
 419 
 
 the Proviiico of Nova Scotia, at the earliest convonieiit period after tlicy 
 liavo been respectively naineil, aiul shall, before proceeUiiiff to any busi- 
 ness, make and subscribe a solemn declaration that they will impartially 
 and carefully examine and decide the matters referred to them to the 
 best of their jud^'ment, and according to justice and equity ; and such 
 declaration shall be entered on the record of their proceedings. 
 
 Each of the High Contracting Parties shall also name one person to 
 attend the (Joramission as its agent, to represent it generally in all mat- 
 ters connected with the Commission. 
 
 Article XXIV. 
 
 The proceedings shall be conducted in such order as the Commission- 
 ers appointed under Articles XXII and XXIII of this Treaty shall de- 
 termine. They shall bo bound to receive such oral or written testimony 
 as either Government may present. If either Party shall offer oral tes- 
 timony, the other Party shall have the right of cross-examination, 
 under such rules as the Commissioners shall prescribe. 
 
 If in the case submitted to the Commissioners either Party shall have 
 specified or alluded to any report or document in its own exclusive pos- 
 session, without annexing a copy, such Party shall be bound, if the 
 other Party thinks proper to apply for it, to furnish that Party with a 
 copy thereof; and either Party may call upon the other, through the 
 Commissioners, to produce the originals or certified copies of any papers 
 adduced as eviden(!e, giving in each instance such reasonable notice as 
 the Commissioners may require. 
 
 The case on either side shall be closed within a period of six months 
 from the date of the organization of the Commission, and the Commis- 
 sioners sh.'iU be requested to give their award as soon as possible there- 
 after. The aforesaid period of six months may be extended for three 
 months in case of a vacancy occurring among the Commissioners niuler 
 the circumstauces contemplated in Article XXIII of this Treaty. 
 
 Article XXV. 
 
 The Commissioners shall keep an accurate record and correct minute 
 or notes of all their proceedings, with the dates thereof, and may ap- 
 point and employ a secretary and any other necessary officer or officers 
 to assist them in the transaction of the business which may come before 
 them. 
 
 Each of the High Contracting Parties shall pay its own Commissioner 
 and agent or counsel; all other expense*? shall be defrayed by the two 
 Governments in equal moieties. 
 
 Article XXVI. 
 
 The navigation of the river St. Lawrence, ascending and descending, 
 from the forty-flfth parallel of north latitude, where it ceases to form the 
 boundary between the two countries, from, to, and into the sea, shall for- 
 ever remain free and open for the purposes of commerce to the citizens 
 of the United States, subject to any laws and- regulations of Great 
 Britain, or of the Dominion of Canada, not inconsistent with such privi- 
 lege of free navigation. 
 
 The navigation of the rivers Yukon, Porcupine, and Stikine, ascending 
 and descending, from, to, and into the sea, shall forever remain free and 
 open for the purposes of commerce to the subjects of Her Britannic 
 
420 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 »^:r 
 
 
 Majesty and to the citizens of the United States, subject to any laws 
 and regulations of either country within its own territory, not incon- 
 sistent with such privilege of free navigation. 
 
 Article XXVII. 
 
 The Government of Her Britannic Mtyesty engages to urge upon the 
 l^overnmont of the Dominion of Canada to secure to the citizens of the 
 United States the use of the Welland, St. Lawrence, and other canals 
 in the Dominion on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the Do- 
 minion ; and the Government of the United States engages that the 
 subjects of Her Britannic Majesty shall enjoy the use of the St. Clair 
 Flats Canal on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the United 
 States ; and further engages to urge upon the State Governments to 
 secure to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty the use of the several 
 State canals connected with the navigation of the lakes or rivers tra- 
 versed by or contiguous to the boundary-line between the possessions 
 of the High Contracting Parties, on terms of equality with the inhab- 
 itants of the United States. 
 
 i:l 
 
 Article XXVIII. 
 
 The navigation of Lake Michigan shall also, for the term of years 
 mentioned in Article XXXIII of this Treaty, be free and open for the 
 purposes of commerce to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, subject 
 to any laws and regulations of the United States or of the States bor- 
 dering thereon not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation 
 
 Article XXIX. 
 
 VJ, 
 
 
 fi 
 
 It is agreed that, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII 
 of this Treaty, goods, wares, or merchandise arriving at the ports of 
 New York, Boston, and Portland, and any other ports in the United 
 States which have been or may irom time to time be specially desig- 
 nated by the President of the United States, and destined for Her 
 Britannic Majesty's Possessions in North America, may be entered at 
 the proper custom-house and conveyed in transit, without the payment 
 of duties, through the territory of the United States, under such rules, 
 regulations, and conditions for the protection of the revenue as the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States may from time to time prescribe ; and, 
 under like rules, regulations, and conditions, goods, wares, or merchan- 
 dise may be conveyed in transit, without the payment of duties, from 
 such Possessions through the territory of the United States for exjiort 
 from the said ports of the United States. 
 
 It is further agreed that, for the like pei'iod, goods, wares, or merchan- 
 dise arriving at any of the ports of Her Britannic Majesty's Possessions 
 in North America and destined for the United States may be entered at 
 the proper custom-house and conveyed in transit, without the payment 
 of duties, through the said Possessions, under such rales and regula- 
 tions, ana conditions for the protection of the revenue, as the Govern- 
 ments of the said Possessions may from time to time prescribe ; and, 
 under like rules, regulations, and conditions, goods, wares, or merchan- 
 dise may be conveyed in transit, without payment of duties, from the 
 United States through the said Possessions to other places in tlie United 
 States, or for export from ports in the said Possessions. 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 421 
 
 )t iiicon- 
 
 upoii tlie 
 us of the 
 er cauals 
 ' the Do. 
 that the 
 St. Clair 
 e United 
 imeDts to 
 e several 
 ivers tra- 
 sscssioiis 
 10 iuhab- 
 
 of years 
 >u for the 
 ', subject 
 ates bor- 
 igatio'' 
 
 XXXIII 
 
 ports of 
 
 United 
 
 lly desig- 
 
 Ibr Her 
 utered at 
 payment 
 ich rules, 
 
 the Gov- 
 be; and, 
 inerchan- 
 ;ies, from 
 )r export 
 
 mercliau" 
 ssessions 
 ntered at 
 payment 
 d regula- 
 Goveru- 
 be ; and, 
 nerchan- 
 from the 
 e United 
 
 Article XXX. 
 
 It is agreed that, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII 
 of this Treaty, subjects of Her Britannic Majesty may carry in British 
 vessels, without payment of duty, goods, wares, or merchandise from 
 one port or place within the territory of the United States npon the St. 
 Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and the rivers connecting the same, to 
 another port or place within the territory of the United States as afore- 
 said : Provided, That a portion of such transportation is made through 
 the Dominion of Canada by land-carriage and in bond, under such rules 
 and regulations as may be agreed upon between the Government of 
 Her Britannic Majesty and the Government of the United States. 
 
 Citizens of the United States may for the like period carry in United 
 States vessels, without payment of duty, goods, M'ares, or merchandise 
 from one port or place \tithin the possessions of Her Britannic Majesty 
 in North' America, to another port or place within said possessions : 
 Provided, That a portion of such transportation is made through the 
 territory of the United States by land-carriage and in bond, under such 
 rules and regulations as may be agreed upon between the Government 
 of the United States and the Government of her Britannic Majesty. 
 
 The Government of the United States further engages not to impose 
 any export duties on goods, wares, or merchandise carried under this 
 article through the territory of the United States ; and Her Majesty's 
 Government engages to urge the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada 
 and the Legislatures of the other colonies not to impose any export duties 
 on goods, wares, or merchandise carried i' ider this article; and the 
 Government of the United States may, in case such export duties are 
 imposed by the Dominion of Canada, suspend, during the period that 
 such duties are imposed, the right of carrying granted under this article 
 in favor of the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty. 
 
 The Government of the United States may suspend the right of carry- 
 ing granted in favor of the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty under this 
 article, in case the Dominion of Canada should at any time deprive the 
 citizens of the United States of the use of the cauals in the said Dominion 
 on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the Dominion, as provided 
 in Article XXVII. 
 
 Article XXXI. 
 
 The Government of Her Britannic Majesty further engages to urge 
 upon the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada and the Legislature of 
 New Brunswick, that no export duty, or other duty, shall be levied on 
 lumber or timber of any kind cut ou that portion of the American ter- 
 ritory in the State of Maine watered by the river St. John and its tribu- 
 ■^taries; and floated down that river to the sea, when the same is shipped 
 to the United States from the Province of New Brunswick. And, in 
 case any such export or>pther duty continues to be levied after the expi- 
 ration of one year from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of 
 this Treaty, it is agreed that the Government of the United States may 
 suspend the right of carrying hereinbefore granted under Article XXX 
 of this Treaty for such period as such export or other duty may be 
 levied. 
 
 Article XXX IL 
 
 It is further agreed that the provisions and stipulations of Articles 
 XVIII to XXV of this Treaty, inclusive, shall extend to the Colony of 
 
422 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 Newfoundland, so far as they are applicable. But if the Imperial Par- 
 liament, the Legislature of Newfoundland, or the Congress of the United 
 States, shall not embrace the Colony of Newfoundland in their laws en- 
 acted for carrying the foregoing Articles into effect, then this Article 
 shall be of no effect; but the omission to make provision by law to give 
 it effecL, by either of the legislative bodies aforesaid, shall not in any 
 way impair any other Articles of this Treaty. 
 
 Article XXXIII. 
 
 f:i 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 M 
 
 inf. 
 
 Ik 
 
 i 
 
 The foregoing Articles XVIII to XV, inclusive, and Article XXX 
 of this Treaty, shall take effect as soon as the laws required to carry 
 them into operation shall ha'^e been passed by the Imperial Parliament 
 of Great Britain, by the Parliament of Canada, and by the Legislature 
 of Prince Edward's Island on the one hand, and by the Congress of the 
 United States on the other. Such assent having been giveii, the said 
 Articles shall remain in force for the period of ten years from the date 
 at which they may como into operation ; and further until the expira- 
 tion of two years after either of the High Contractirig Parties shall have 
 given notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same ; each of the 
 High Contracting Parties being at liberty to give such notice to the 
 other at the end of the said period of ten years or at any time afterward. 
 
 Article XXXIV. 
 
 Whereas it was stipulated by Article I of the Treaty concluded at 
 Washington on the loth of June, 1846, between the United States and 
 Her Britannic Majesty, that the line of boundary between the territories 
 of the United States and those of Her Britannic Majesty, from the point 
 ou the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude up to which it had already 
 been ascertained, should be continued westward along the said parallel 
 of north latitude " to the middle of the channel which separates the con- 
 tinent from Vancouver's Island, and thence southerly through the mid- 
 dle of the said channel and of Fuca Straits, to the Pacific Ocean ;" and 
 whereas the Commissioners appointed by the two High Contracting 
 Parties to determine that portion of the boundary which runs south- 
 erly through the middle of the channel aforesaid, were unable to agree 
 upon the same ; and whereas the Government of Her Britannic Majesty 
 claims that such boundary line should, under the terms of the Treaty above 
 recited, be run through the llosario Straits, and the Government of the 
 United States claims that it should be run through the Canal de Haro, 
 it is agreed that the respective claims of the Government of the United 
 States and of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty shall be sub- 
 mitted to the arbitration and award of His Majesty the Kmperor of 
 Germany, who, having regard to the above-mentioned Article of the 
 said Treaty, shall decide thereupon, finally and without appeal, which 
 of those claims is most in accordance with the true interpretation of the 
 Treaty of June 15, 184G. 
 
 Article XXXV. 
 
 The award of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany shall be con- 
 sidered as absolutely final and conclusive ; and full effect shall be given 
 to such award without any objection, evasion, or delay whatsoever. 
 Such decision shall be given in writing and dated ; it shall be in what- 
 soever form His Majesty may choose to adopt; it shall be delivered to 
 
GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 423 
 
 eriiil Par- 
 le United 
 ' laws en- 
 la Article 
 w to give 
 ot in any 
 
 cle XXX 
 
 [ to carry 
 firliameut 
 !gislature 
 ess of the 
 , the said 
 I the date 
 le expira- 
 jhall have 
 ich of the 
 ice to the 
 ifterward. 
 
 eluded at 
 tates and 
 ;erritories 
 the point 
 1 already 
 i parallel 
 8 the con- 
 the mid- 
 an ;" and 
 ntracting 
 as south- 
 to agree 
 i Majesty 
 >ty above 
 nt of the 
 de Haro, 
 10 United 
 I be sub- 
 nperor of 
 3le of the 
 >al, which 
 ion of the 
 
 be con- 
 be given 
 
 latsoever. 
 in what- 
 
 livered to 
 
 the Representatives or other i»ublic agents of the United States and of 
 Great Britain, respectivelj", who may be actually at Berlin, and nhall 
 bo considered as operative from tlie day of the date of the delivery 
 thereof. 
 
 * Article XXXVI. 
 
 The written or printed case of p<iA of the two Tarries, accompanied 
 by the evidence offered in support of the same, shall bo laid before Ilis 
 Majesty the Emperor of Germany within six months from the date of 
 the exchange of the ratifications of this Treaty, and a copy of such case 
 and evidence shall be communicated by each Party to the other, through 
 their respective Representatives at Berlin, 
 
 The High Contracting Parties may include in the evidence to be con- 
 sidered by the Arbitrator such docum*. nts, ofiicial correspondence, and 
 other official or public statements bearing on the subject of the reference 
 as they may consider necessary to the support of their respective vjases. 
 
 After the written or printed case shall have been communicated by 
 each Party to the other, each Party shall have the power of drawing up 
 and laying before the Arbitrator a second and definitive statement, if it 
 think lit to do so, in reply to the case of the other Party so communi- 
 cated, which definitive statement shall be so Laid before the Arbitrator, 
 and also be mutrally communicated in the same manner as aforesaid, 
 by each Party to the other, within six months from the date of laying 
 the first statement of the case before the Arbitrator. 
 
 Article XXXVII. 
 
 If, in the case submitted to the Arbitrator, either Party^ shall specify 
 or allude to any report or document in its own exclusive possession 
 without annexing a copy, such Party shall be bound, if the other Party 
 thinks proper to apply for it, to furnish that Party with a copy thereof, 
 and either Party may call upon the other, through the Arbitrator, to 
 produce the originals or certified copies of any papers adduced as evi- 
 dence, giving in each instant such reasonable notice as the Arbitrator 
 may require. And if the Arbitrator should desire further elucidation or 
 evidence with regard to any point contained in the statements laid be- 
 fore him, ho shall be at liberty to require it from either Party, and he 
 shall be at liberty to hear one counsel or agent for each Party, in rela- 
 tion to any matter, and at such time, and in such manner, as he may 
 think fit. 
 
 Article XXXVIII. 
 
 tlTho Representatives or other public Age its of the United States 
 and of Great Britain at Berlin respectivelv shall be considered as the 
 agents of their respective Governments to conduct their cases before 
 the Arbitrator, who shall be requested to .address all his communica- 
 tions, and give all his notices to such Representatives or other public 
 Agents, who shall represent their respective Governments, generally, 
 in all matters connected v/ith the arbitration. 
 
 Article XXXIX. 
 
 It shall bo competent to the Aibitrator to proceed in the said arbitra- 
 tion, and all matters relating thereto, as and when he shall see fit, either 
 
424 
 
 GENERAL APPENDIX. 
 
 in person, or by a person or persons named by him for that purpose, 
 either in the presence or absence of either or both agents, and either 
 orally or by written discussion or otherwise. 
 
 Article XL. 
 
 The Arbitrator may, if he think fit, appoint a secretary, or.clerk, for 
 the purposes of the proposed arbitration, at such rate of remuneration 
 as he shall think proper. This, and all other expenses of and connected 
 with the said arbitration, shall be provided for as hereinafter stipulated. 
 
 Article XLI. 
 
 The Arbitrator shall be requested to deliver, together with his award^ 
 an account of all the costs and expenses which he may have been put 
 to in relation to this matter, which shall forthwith be repaid by the two 
 Governments in equal moieties. 
 
 Article XLII. 
 
 The Arbitrator shall be requested to give his award in writing as. 
 early as convenient after the whole case on each side shall have been 
 laid before him, and to deliver one copy thereof to each of the said 
 agents. ^ 
 
 Article XLIII. 
 
 The present Treaty shall be duly ratified by the President of the 
 United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the 
 Senate thereof, and by her Britannic Majesty, and the ratifications shall 
 be exchanged either at Washington or at London within six montb» 
 from the date hereof, or earlier if possible. 
 
 In faith whereof we, the respective Plenipotentaries, have signed 
 this Treaty and have hereunto affixed our seals. 
 
 Done in duplicate at Washington the eighth day of May, in the year 
 of our Loru one thousand eight hundred and seventy -one. ' 
 
 HAMILTON FISH. 
 
 ROBERT O. SCHBNCK. 
 
 SAMUEL NELSON. 
 
 BBENEZBR ROCKWOOD HOAR. 
 
 GEO. H. WILLIAMS. 
 
 Db grey & RIPON. 
 
 STAFFORD H. NORTHCOTE. 
 
 EDWARD THORNTON. 
 
 JOHN A. MACDONALD. 
 
 MOUNT AGUE BERNARD. 
 
 L. 
 L. 
 L. 
 
 S. 
 
 s.' 
 s. 
 
 L» 
 
 s. 
 
 L. 
 
 s. 
 
 L. 
 
 s. 
 
 L. 
 L. 
 
 s. 
 s. 
 
 L. 
 
 s. 
 
 L. 
 
 s.