"The undersigned can not, however, admit the validity of any argument which would exempt the imperial government from the payment of interest. If the claim in itself can be sustained, of which the umpire has no doubt, the claimants are entitled to interest. "Certain expenses incurred for the maintenance and passage home of the crew, as also three months' wages to each of the crew, being the amount which all owners of vessels of the United States are bound to pay to seamen discharged abroad, the undersigned considers to be justly due, but can not allow more than this, on the same principle on which he founds his opinion that prospective profits are inadmissible. "The undersigned therefore lays down the items as follows: Value of ship Canada on December 1, 1856.. Value of her outfits, etc.. 75 barrels of oil, at $47.25 per barrel Transit of crew from Rio Grande do Norte to Pernambuco.... Board and clothing in December and January. Transit to United States, 26 men at $10 each... Wages for three months each: First mate, at $100 per month Third mate, at $60 per month Fourth mate, at $50 per month Four men, boat steerers, at $40 per month Four men, boat steerers, at $30 per month $10,000.00 39,000.00 3, 543.75 227.82 432.44 260.00 300.00 225.00 180.00 150.00 480.00 360.00 504.00 45, 077.03 Fourteen men, at 12 per month.. Thirteen and a half years' interest, at 6 per cent, from December 1, 1856, to June 1, 1870.. 100, 740. 04 "The umpire therefore decides that the imperial government of Brazil is liable to that of the United States, as compensation to the owners of the United States whale ship Canada and of the cargo thereof, in the sum of $100,740.04, payable in coin. "EDWARD THORNTON." CHAPTER XLII. CLAIMS OF PELLETIER AND LAZARE: PROTOCOL BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND HAYTI OF MAY 24, 1884. Terms of the Submission. By a protocol signed at Washington May 24, 1884, by Mr. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State of the United States, and Mr. Preston, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Hayti, the Governments of the United States and Hayti agreed to refer the claims of Antonio Pelletier and A. H. Lazare, citizens of the United States, against the republic of Hayti, to the Hon. William Strong, formerly a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, as sole arbitrator. Though the claims were thus referred together, they were not otherwise connected. They differed both in origin, in character, and in ownership. The grounds on which they rested were summarily stated in the protocol. Those in the case of Pelletier were described as follows: "That Pelletier was master of the bark William, which vessel entered Fort Liberté about the date claimed (31st of March 1861); that the master and crew were arrested and tried on a charge of piracy and attempt at slave trading; that Pelletier, the master, was sentenced to be shot, and the mate and other members of the crew to various terms of imprisonment; that the supreme court of Hayti reversed the judgment as to Pelletier, and sent the case to the court at Cape Haytien, where he was retried and sentenced to five years' imprisonment; and that the vessel, with her tackle, was sold, and the proceeds divided between the Haytian Government and the party who, claiming to have suffered by her acts, proceeded against the vessel in a Haytian tribunal." The grounds of the claim of A. H. Lazare were described in the protocol as follows: "That Lazare entered into a written contract with the Haytian Government September 23, 1874, for the establishment of a national bank at Port au Prince, with branches, the capital being fixed first at $3,000,000, and afterward reduced to $1,500,000, of which capital the government was to furnish one-third part and Lazare two-thirds; that the bank was to be opened in one year from the date of the contract, and an extension of forty-five days on this time was granted on Lazare's request, and that on the day when the bank was to be opened the Haytian Government, alleging that Lazare had not fulfilled his part of the engagement, declared, in accordance with the stipulations of article 24 of the agreement, the contract null and void, and forfeited on his, Lazare's, part." Evidence. The arbitrator was required to "receive and examine all papers and evidence" relating to the foregoing claims, which should be "presented to him on behalf of either government." He was empowered, however, to "request further evidence, whether documentary or by testimony given under oath before him or before any person duly commissioned to that end;" and the two governments engaged jointly or severally "to procure and furnish such further evidence by all the means in their power." It was further provided that "all pertinent papers on file with either government" should "be accessible" to the arbitrator. Counsel. By Article III. of the protocol it was provided that both governments might be repre sented before the arbitrator by counsel. Such counsel were authorized to submit briefs, and, if the arbitrator so desired, to argue their cases orally. The rule of decision, in accordance with Rule of Decision. which the arbitrator was to decide both cases, was expressed in the declaration which he was required to subscribe before entering upon the discharge of his duties. This declaration, as prescribed by Article IV. of the protocol, was as follows: "I do solemnly declare that I will decide impartially the claims of Antonio Pelletier and A. H. Lazare preferred on behalf of the United States against the government of the re public of Hayti; and that all questions laid before me by either government in reference to said claims shall be decided by me according to the rules of international law existing at the time of the transactions complained of." The arbitrator was required to render his decision in each case separately, within a year from the date of the signature of the protocol; but the time was afterward extended to July 28, 1885.1 Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Strong, April 17, 1885, inclosing an additional protocol to extend the time for the rendition of the awards. bitration. The arbitrator held his first session in a Beginning of the Ar- room at the Department of State, November 10,1884. The Government of the United States was represented by Mr. Samuel F. Phillips, then SolicitorGeneral; the Government of Hayti by the Marquis De Chambrun and Mr. George S. Boutwell. Mr. William S. Peddrick was chosen as joint secretary of the two governments. The arbitrator stated that he had made the declaration prescribed by the protocol. It was sworn to and subscribed before Chief Justice Waite, October 7, 1884. November 17 was fixed as the day for taking up of the Pelletier case. tier Case. On that day the case was proceeded with, Opening of the Pelle- Mr. Phillips being assisted by private counsel of the claimant. Various papers were offered in evidence, and, in respect of some of them, questions were raised as to their admissibility. The arbitrator stated that he would receive all papers introduced in the case, but would attach to them only such weight as might seem proper. At the next meeting, which was held November 26, further papers were presented on the part of the claimant. Order of Proof. At the opening of the session on December 2, Mr. Phillips suggested that it was the duty of the arbitrator, under the provisions of the protocol, after he should have read the papers already submitted to him, to "propose" to the respective governments what further evidence he might require in order to settle the controversy before him. Mr. Phillips intimated that under the provisions of the protocol the "initiative" would rest upon the arbitrator, and that, in consideration of the "general 'Altogether five persons appeared during the proceedings as counsel for Pelletier-Messrs. A. H. Jackson, A. L. Merriman, C. A. Eldredge, T. J. Cason, and F. P. Stanton. 2 The provisions of the protocol referred to by Mr. Phillips were as follows: "Said arbitrator shall receive and examine all papers and evidence relating to said claims, which may be presented to him on behalf of either government. If, in presence of such papers and evidence so laid before him, the said arbitrator shall request further evidence, whether documentary or by testimony given under oath before him or before any person duly commissioned to that end, the two governments, or either of them, engage to procure and furnish such further evidence by all means within their power, and all pertinent papers on file with either government shall be accessible to the said arbitrator." |