penter personally, the above-mentioned words were, said the Dutch Reply, sufficient to condemn the entire claim. The Dutch Reply stated that Captain Carpenter was arrested on November 2, 1891, by virtue of a decision of the court of justice at Macassar of January 26, 1891. By this decision Carpenter was ordered to be arrested and prosecuted for the alleged theft in 1888. He was sent to Macassar on the 6th of November, and arrived there on the 16th. The depositions of different persons had given rise to the "presumption" that he committed the crime with which he was charged. By the law in force in the Netherlands Indies, the court of justice, in the ordinary course of procedure, made preliminary inquiries in order to decide whether leave to prosecute should be granted, and then, if such leave was given, instituted a preliminary investigation (instruction) in order to decide whether there was ground to refer the matter to the court for a hearing and trial, or whether the complaint should be dismissed on the ground of insufficiency of the presumptions or on any other ground. November 28, 1891, the magistrate at Macassar moved the court of justice to decide that there was no ground for bringing Carpenter to trial, and that he should be liberated on the ground that the interrogatories showed that at the time when the goods taken out of the praw were appropriated the vessel was more than three miles from the coast. On this motion Carpenter was liberated twelve days after his arrival. The proceedings were in accordance with law. If the judicial authorities at Macassar were to be reproached, it should be because they held themselves to be incompetent in the matter, although there was reason to contend both that the goods had been stolen from on board a Netherlands Indian vessel, and that some of them were afterwards sold or exchanged on Netherlands Indian territory.

But, even assuming, said the Netherlands Reply, that the court correctly decided that it was incompetent to deal with the act charged, there would be no ground for a claim of indemnity. No indemnity could be claimed by the subjects of the state, either in the Netherlands or in Great Britain, "on the sole ground that the presumptions were not sufficient to warrant arrest." Neither, therefore, could a foreigner establish such a claim.1 The Netherland Reply also suggested that even if the act charged had taken place more than three miles from the shore, it did not follow that it was committed outside of territorial waters; that such waters were restricted to a distance of three miles from the shore only when that limit was fixed by law or by an international convention, and that the extent of jurisdiction might be established on the basis of the well-known proposition of Bynkershoek-"Terrae dominium finitur ubi finitur armorum vis." In further support of the right of the Netherlands Indies authorities to inquire into the case, a charge of crime within their jurisdiction having been presented to them, the Dutch Reply referred to Pradier-Fodéré, Traité de Droit International Public, V. 534-536.

The British Government in a new memorandum, in answer to the Dutch

F. de Martens, Traité de Droit International, I. 447-448; Pasquale Fiore, Nuovo Diritto Internazionale, I. secs. 648, 649, 678; Pradier-Fodéré, Traité de Droit International Privé, I. sec. 200; Funck-Brentano et Sorel, Précis du Droit des Gens, 226; Stoerk in v. Holtzendorff, Encyclopaedie der Rechtswissenschaften, 1300, sec. 38.

Reply, contended that upon the proofs submitted by the Dutch Government there was no evidence before the colonial authorities to make out such a case of reasonable suspicion as would have justified Captain Carpenter's arrest; that the statements of the witnesses who were examined prior to the issuance of the order of arrest were altogether inconsistent with the assertion that the prauw was more than three miles from land, and failed to establish the identity between the prauw found and the prauw lost; and that the statement of the Dutch Government that there was no remedy for Captain Carpenter under its municipal law only proved the necessity of intervention by the British Government, and the international obligation of the Netherlands Government to repair the wrong which was actually done.

The arbitrator rendered the following award:

[Translation.]

"In virtue of the high duties of arbitrator conferred by supreme order of my august master, His Majesty the Emperor Nicholas II. of All the Russias, F. de Martens, privy councillor, permanent member of the council of the Russian ministry of foreign affairs, and emeritus professor, in accordance with the convention of the 16th May 1895, concluded between the Government of Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, and the Government of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, on the subject of the difference which has arisen between the two governments in respect of the detention of Mr. Carpenter, captain of the Australian whaler the Costa Rica Packet

"Having duly examined and maturely weighed the documents which have been produced on either side with regard to the indemnity claimed by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty from the Government of the Netherlands on behalf of Captain Carpenter, and the officers, crew, and owners of the vessel Costa Rica Packet

"Animated by a sincere desire to justify the great honor which has been conferred on me by an impartial and scrupulous decision, and taking into account the principles of international law applicable to the dispute which has arisen between the two high contending governments, in order to fix the amount of the indemnity due by the Government of the Netherlands on account of the damages suffered personally by Captain Carpenter, of the Costa Rica Packet, as well as those that may be proved to have been suffered by the officers, crew, and owners of the aforesaid vessel, as a necessary consequence of the precautionary detention of Mr. Carpenter, "I pronounce the following award of arbitration:

"Considering that the right of sovereignty of the state over territorial waters is determined by the range of cannon measured from the low-water mark;

"That on the high seas even merchant vessels constitute detached portions of the territory of the state whose flag they bear, and, consequently, are only justiciable by their respective national authorities for acts committed on the high seas;

"That the state has not only the right but even the duty of protecting and defending its nationals abroad by every means authorized by international law, when they are subjected to arbitrary proceedings or injuries committed to their prejudice;

"That the sovereignty of the state and the independence of the judicial or administrative authorities could not prevail to the extent of arbitrarily suppressing the legal security, which ought to be guaranteed no less to foreigners than to natives in the territory of every civilized country;

"Whereas the prauw, floating derelict at sea, and taken possession of in January 1888 by Mr. Carpenter, the captain of the Costa Rica Packet, was seized by him incontrovertibly outside the territorial waters of the Dutch Indies;

"Whereas the appropriation of the cargo of the aforesaid prauw by Mr. Carpenter having taken place on the high seas was only justiciable by English tribunals, and in nowise by Dutch tribunals;

"Whereas even the identity of the above-mentioned derelict with the lost prauw belonging to M. Frieser is in nowise proved;

"Whereas the authorities of the Netherlands Indies, who had arrested Mr. Carpenter in November 1891 on the charge of his having committed the act in 1888 outside the territorial waters of the Netherlands Indies, abandoned of their own accord, by the decision of the Macassar council of justice, dated the 28th November 1891, the prosecution of the accused, and irrefutably established by this action the illegality of his detention, as well as of his forced transference from Ternate to Macassar;

"Whereas all the papers and deeds produced go to prove the absence of any real cause for arresting Mr. Carpenter, and confirm his right to be indemnified for the losses sustained by him;

"Whereas the treatment to which Mr. Carpenter was subjected in prison at Macassar appears to be unjustifiable in view of his being the subject of a civilized state, whose detention was only a precautionary measure, and that, consequently, this treatment entitles him to a fair compensation; 1 "Whereas the unjustifiable detention of Captain Carpenter caused him to miss the best part of the whale-fishing season;

"Whereas, on the other hand, Mr. Carpenter, on being set free, was in a position to have returned on board the ship Costa Rica Packet in January 1892 at the latest, and whereas no conclusive proof has been produced by him to show that he was obliged to leave his ship until April 1892 in the port of Ternate without a master, or, still less, to sell her at a reduced price;

"Whereas the owners or the captain of the ship being under an obligation, as a precaution against the occurrence of some accident to the captain, to make provision for his being replaced, the mate of the Costa Rica Packet ought to have been fit to take the command and to carry on the whale-fishing industry;

"And whereas, thus, the losses sustained by the proprietors of the vessel Costa Rica Packet, the officers, and the crew, in consequence of the detention of Mr. Carpenter, are not entirely the necessary consequence of this precautionary detention;

Mr. Carpenter, as stated in the British Case, was, on his arrival at Macassar, "placed in gaol after being subjected to public and gross indignities, and imprisoned in a cell for condemned Europeans.””

It seems that Mr. Carpenter was an American by birth, who had been naturalized in the British dominions. (Mr. Quinby to Mr. Gresham, June 28, 1894, MS. Despatches from the Netherlands.)

"Whereas, in so far as the indemnity to be paid to Captain Carpenter, the officers, crew, and owners of the vessel Costa Rica Packet is concerned, the documents produced, and, in particular, the expert opinion to which recourse has been had at Brussels, do not furnish the necessary elements for fixing the amount, and whereas a sufficient indemnity will have been given them by granting the sum of 3,1507. to Captain Carpenter, the sum of 1,6007. to the officers and crew, and the sum of 3,8001. to the owners of the Vessel Costa Rica Packet

"For these reasons:

"I declare the Government of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands responsible, and I, consequently, fix the indemnity to be paid at—

"The sum total of 3, 150l. to Captain Carpenter.

"The sum total of 1,6007. to the officers and crew.

"The sum total of 3,8007. to the owners of the vessel Costa Rica Packet— "With interest on all these damages at the rate of 5 per cent per annum, from the 2nd November 1891, the date of the illegal arrest of Captain Carpenter, and I put the expenses at the total sum of 2501., to be paid by the Government of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands.

"Done at St. Petersburgh, in duplicate, the 13th (25th) February, 1897. "MARTENS."

March 3, 1897, the Dutch minister at London transmitted to the British Government, in payment of the foregoing award, the sum of 11,0821. 78. 6d., the receipt of which was on the same day duly acknowledged.

Great Britain and Nicaragua.-Award of the Emperor of Austria as to the interpretation of the treaty of Managua.1

[Translation.]

"We, Francis Joseph the First, by the grace of God, Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, &c., and Apostolic King of Hungary:

"Whereas the Government of Her Britannic Majesty and the Government of Nicaragua have consented to submit to our arbitration the question in dispute between them of the interpretation of certain articles of the treaty of Managua, signed on the 28th January 1860, and whereas we declared ourselves willing to accept the office of arbitrator in this matter, we have come to the following decision, based on one of the three legal opinions which were drawn up and submitted to us at our request:

"ARTICLE I. The sovereignty of the Republic of Nicaragua, which was recognized by Articles I. and II. of the Treaty of Managua of the 28th Jannary 1860, is not full and unlimited with regard to the territory assigned to the Mosquito Indians, but is limited by the self-government conceded to the Mosquito Indians in Article III. of this treaty.

"ARTICLE II. The Republic of Nicaragua, as a mark of its sovereignty, is entitled to hoist the flag of the Republic throughout the territory assigned to the Mosquito Indians.

1 See Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kasson, MS. Inst. to Austria, August 1, December 18, and December 26, 1879, and June 4, 1880. This award and the accompanying opinion have become obsolete as the result of the formal and voluntary incorporation of the Mosquito Indians into the Republic of Nicaragua. (For. Rel. 1894, App. I. 354–363.)

“ARTICLE III. The Republic of Nicaragua is entitled to appoint a commissioner for the protection of its sovereign rights throughout the territory assigned to the Mosquito Indians.

"ARTICLE IV. The Mosquito Indians are also to be allowed to hoist their flag henceforward, but they must at the same time attach to it some emblem of the sovereignty of the Republic of Nicaragua.

“ARTICLE V. The Republic of Nicaragua is not entitled to grant concessions for the acquisition of natural products in the territory assigned to the Mosquito Indians. That right belongs to the Mosquito Government. "ARTICLE VI. The Republic of Nicaragua is not entitled to regulate the trade of the Mosquito Indians, or to levy duties on goods imported into or exported from the territory reserved to the Mosquito Indians. That right belongs to the Mosquito Indians.

"ARTICLE VII. The Republic of Nicaragua is bound to pay over to the Mosquito Indians the arrears of the yearly sums assured to them by Article V. of the Treaty of Managua, which arrears now amount to 30,859 dol. 3 c. For this purpose the sum of 30,859 dol. 3 c., deposited in the Bank of England, together with the interest accruing thereto in the meantime, is to be handed over to the British Government. The Republic of Nicaragua is not bound to pay back-interest ("Verzugszinsen") on the sums in arrear. "ARTICLE VIII. The Republic of Nicaragua is not entitled to impose either import or export duties on goods which are either imported into or exported from the territory of the free port of San Juan del Norte (Greytown).

"The Republic of Nicaragua is, however, entitled to impose import duties on goods on their conveyance from the territory of the free port of Greytown to the territory of the Republic, and export duties on their conveyance from the territory of the Republic to the free port of San Juan del Norte (Greytown).

"Given under our hand and seal at Vienna.

"JULY 2, 1881."

"FRANCIS-JOSEPH.

[Legal Opinion on which the Award was based-Translation.]

"In order to appreciate and settle the differences that have arisen between Her Britannic Majesty's Government and that of the Republic of Nicaragua respecting the interpretation of some articles of the treaty concluded by them at Managua on the 28th January 1860, it is necessary to recapitulate as succinctly as possible, in so far as they bear upon the declaration of the award, the complicated relations and the conflicting claims which existed before that treaty was drawn up and which led to its conclusion.

"(The following exposition, apart from the materials contained in the controversial documents of the two governments, is based upon the works cited below: Martens-Samwer, Recueil Général de Traités, Tome XV. pp. 158-250; Von Reden, Das Mosquito-Gebiet, in Petermann's Geographischen Mittheilungen, 1856, p. 250 sq.; Samwer, Die Gebietsverhältnisse Centralamerika's, ebenda, p. 257 sq.; Scherzer, Wanderungen durch Nicaragua, Honduras, und San Salvador, 1857; P. Lévy, Notas Géograficas y Econòmicas sobre la República de Nicaragua, Paris, 1873.)

"The rightful sovereignty over the territory inhabited by the Mosquito Indians on the east coast of Central America along the Caribbean Sea, but not exactly defined inland, had been long in dispute. On the one