have a right to recover damages to the amount of $75, with interest at 6 per cent from the 10th of January 1869 to this day. "That in towing the Spanish schooner of war Omega, the Arietes did to the Spanish ship a service, for which the claimants have a right to receive remuneration to the amount of $100, with interest at 6 per cent a year from the 10th of January 1869 to this day."

M. Bartholdi, umpire, December 12, 1874, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement of February 11-12, 1871.

Charles Jemot, a citizen of the United States, Jemot's Case. was part owner of a hacienda situated near Trinidad de Cuba, and between two camps of insurgents. In May 1869 he was arrested there on a charge of conveying information to the insurgents. On this charge he was tried by a court-martial and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. Through the intervention of the United States consul he was released on condition of leaving the island without permission to return. The arbitrators allowed him $5,000 with interest from December 4, 1869. The grounds of this award are not stated. It was on or about December 4, 1869, that he left Cuba under the conditions of his release.

Fritot's Case.

Charles Jemot v. Spain, No. 108, April 8, 1876, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement between the United States and Spain of February 11-12, 1871. The claimant, a native of Cuba, was naturalized in the United States in 1860. On February 11, 1869, he was arrested in Cuba as a suspected and dangerous person. He was imprisoned until March 12, when he and other citizens of the United States were released at the request of the consul-general of the United States at Havana and Admiral Hoff. A few hours after his release he was rearrested by a Spanish officer on the supposi tion that he had escaped, and was confined until the following day, when, having been again released, he went on board a United States man-of-war, by which he was brought to the United States.

It was contended by the advocate for Spain that the claimant when arrested was not known to be an American citizen, and that it did not appear that he had ever made known his nationality until an application was made for his release on that ground. Moreover, there was at the time of his imprisonment an insurrection in Cuba, in which the power of arrest had to be freely exercised in a manner coextensive with the

necessity. Martial law prevailed, and the claimant, it was contended, was subject to it. (United States v. Diekelman, 92 U. S. 520, 526.) The treaty of 1795, said the advocate for Spain, allowed the claimant to employ counsel and to have his case conducted according to the regular course of proceedings usual in such cases, and there was no allegation or proof that any such privilege was denied him. He left the island, as it was maintained, voluntarily.

The claimant demanded $250,000. There was evidence to show that at the time of his release he was earning $3,000 a year. The arbitrators allowed him $500.

Henry Fritot v. Spain, No. 35, March 16, 1873, Spanish Claims Commission; agreement between the United States and Spain of February 11-12, 1871.

The claimant, a native of Ireland and a natMontgomery's Case. uralized citizen of the United States, was employed in 1870 as an engineer on a sugar plantation in Cuba. June 26 he was arrested by the military authorities for insolence or want of respect to Colonel Verges, governor of Guantanamo, "the chief of operations in the field," who visited the plantation during the day, and whom the claimant on that occasion inadvertently (as he alleged) omitted to salute. The claimant was confined for three or four days, when he was reprimanded and released without trial. In consequence of his arrest and imprisonment, he lost his position as engineer. He claimed damages to the amount of $22,090. The arbitrator for the United States awarded him a year's salary as engineer at $1,000, with interest at 8 per cent from the day of arrest till final payment of the award. The arbitrator for Spain thought it clear, from the claimant's own statements, that he "was guilty of some want of respect, whether intentional or not, to an officer in the field in a time of insurrection and public danger;" that the only facts proved, on which Spain could be held liable, were "that he was arrested under circumstances of perhaps unnecessary hardship, and that he was detained three or four days instead of twenty-four hours, which, under the circumstances, would have been a reasonable time;" and that the sum of $500 would be "an ample indemnity." The umpire allowed $1,000 without interest.

Case of William Montgomery, No. 8, Span. Com. (1871), July 12, 1880.

Machado's Case.

The claimant, a naturalized citizen of the United States, was arrested in Havana in July 1869 for bringing prohibited papers into Cuba. Havana was at the time under martial law, and any correspondence with insurgents was specially prohibited by military orders. The claimant had in his possession certain bonds or certificates which were given to him by an escaped Cuban insurgent in New York, to be delivered to a house in Cuba. He was also the bearer of several letters from the family of the insurgent in question, and of a letter from a young man in New York to his father in Cuba, expressing devotion to the cause of Cuba, and a hope to serve her in the diplo matic line. After a detention of three days the claimant was released, but was informed that the proceedings against him would not be dismissed. He then desired permission to leave the country, which was granted on condition that he would not return while the existing condition of things in Cuba continued. Subsequently he asked if he could remain to finish his business, and was told he could stay a reasonable time. He left Cuba about the middle of October 1869, without having received from the government any order of expulsion. He made the following claims: For value of goods in his store in Havana, $40,000; for goods left in the custom house, $20,000; for debts which he lost through his expulsion, $10,000; for loss of power to do business, $50,000; for personal sufferings, $50,000; and as he claimed interest on all these sums at 8 per cent, his claim at the time of its hearing amounted to upward of $300,000. The umpire rendered the following decision:

"The claimant in this case * complains that he was illegally arrested when he went to Havana from New York in July 1869, in order to settle some old affairs before going to Para, Brazil, where he was to establish himself in business. He intended to return to New York in August. He was arrested in Havana on July 28, and was imprisoned from about 4 o'clock on Wednesday afternoon till about 1 o'clock the next Saturday, when he was released from confinement. A suspicion that he was the bearer of certain papers and correspondence which the law in force in Cuba at the time did not permit him to bear, and which papers and correspondence were liable to seizure, was the cause of his arrest and imprisonment. Such correspondence was found in his possession, and in consequence there was sufficient ground for his temporary imprisonment.

"The correspondence found was not of a political character, `but it was prohibited by military orders to carry even privaté

letters from insurgents, and as a violation of the law had been committed, the Spanish authorities had a right to proceed against him, but with due regard to the reservations provided in the treaty of 1795 in favor of American citizens. The Spanish authorities declared after his release that the proceedings would be continued, and that the charge was the bringing of political correspondence from members of the Cuban Junta in New York, in which it was said that the claimant had the writer's confidence, and that he could be spoken freely with, but after some conferences with the American consul-general they gave the claimant the choice either to depart within a certain time, which he found prudent to do, or to remain in Cuba and take his trial on the above charge.

"The principal evidence produced by Spain as proof of this charge is a letter from a young gentleman to his father in Cuba, expressing great enthusiasm for the cause of Cuba, and his hope to serve her in the diplomatic line. He gives incidentally an account of some plans of the New York Junta to establish diplomatic relations with foreign powers. He says he has some hope to be employed as secretary of one of the missions, and asks his father to send him in a covert way his opinion whether he ought to accept. This letter is, in the opinion of the umpire, no sufficient justification of the charge, by which the claimant was frightened away, and he is entitled to some indemnity.

Some

"There is no evidence that any property belonging to the claimant was ever seized by administrative embargo. goods in a store were seized in August 1869, and it is contended that this seizure was illegal; but the claimant's own testimony tends to prove the contrary, because he says that the American consul general, Mr. Plumb, to whom he complained, refused to interfere, and because it is not credible that Mr Plumb would have omitted to interfere and to report the case to the Department of State if this had been a case of administrative embargo. The goods in the store were finally appraised at $4,000, and sold in 1871 for the benefit of creditors. It is prob able that they were seized by judicial process already in August 1869.

"The umpire decides that an indemity of $5,000, with interest at 6 per cent a year from the 16th of October 1869 to this day, be paid on account of this claim."

Count Lewenhaupt, umpire, December 28, 1880, John A. Machado v. Spain, No. 84, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement between the United States and Spain of February 11-12, 1871.

Powers's Case..

On April 3, 1870, John E. Powers, a citizen of the United States, who was in charge of a trainload of troops in Cuba as engine-driver, was arrested on suspicion of having voluntarily thrown the train from the track in order to prevent the troops from

joining another body of soldiers who were engaged in a skirmish with insurgents. He was confined in prison by the military authorities till May 18, a period of forty-five days, and for a week after his trial and acquittal (on May 11) by a military court. His innocence was in fact well established by a preliminary inquiry held on the 8th of April. He claimed $12,000 damages for illegal arrest, ill treatment in prison, and the robbery of a watch and some money while he was in custody.

The arbitrator for the United States, Mr. Stewart, held that the arrest and imprisonment of the claimant by the military authorities was a violation of the guaranties of the treaty of 1795, and for this, as well as for the ill treatment and robbery, and the loss of wages during a period of enforced idleness resulting from the arrest, be awarded the sum of $6,487, with interest at 6 per cent.

Mr. Brunetti, the arbitrator for Spain, thought that the claimant's arrest was legal; that while all persons in districts in a state of siege where the usual civil rights were, as in the present case, suspended, were subject to military authority, the claimant was clearly so subject, being at the time of his arrest engaged in the transportation of troops and under military command; that the alleged ill treatment and robbery were not sufficiently proved, but that the claimant's detention was unnecessarily long and exceeded the requirements of the case; that he should have been promptly tried, say within two weeks; that damages should be allowed him to the amount of $500 for loss of wages during his unnecessary imprisonment, but that nothing should be allowed for the loss of his employment, both because that loss would have occurred if he had been imprisoned for only two weeks, and because he did not profit by an offer made to him during his arrest of release on bail.

The umpire held that under the circumstances there was sufficient ground for the claimant's arrest, and that the charges of ill treatment and robbery, which rested solely on the claimant's statements, were not sufficiently proved; but he also held that the claimant's innocence should have been considered as clearly established by the preliminary inquiry of the 8th of April, and that he should be allowed $4,000, without interest, for being illegally imprisoned for forty days.

Count Lewenhaupt, umpire, February 24, 1881, John E. Powers v. Spain, No. 106, Spanish Commission, agreement of February 11-12, 1871.