if requested, under the rule the Agents have adopted. At the same time, though it may thus be said to be brought within the letter of a clause in the Convention, it does not show it to be of the class of cases which had been acted upon, as requiring international adjudication.

We have already had before us a claim, presented in like manner, coming within the letter of the Convention, which, on full argument, we held was not within the class of cases designed to be submitted to us. I refer to the case of William Cook and others, citizens of The United States, who claimed to recover against the British Government a large sum in their custody realized from the sale of the effects of Mrs. Frances M. Shard, of whom they alleged they were the sole heirs. This was persisted in as a claim of citizens of The United States against the British Government.

It was a claim, however, of a character such as had never been adopted, and acted upon as a matter of international consideration, and was rejected by us as not embraced within the intent of the Convention.-(See ante, page 56.)

The Agent of Great Britain filed a protest in that case, which will be found in the appendix, setting forth fully the reasons why jurisdiction should not be entertained by us, many of the general grounds of which will apply to this case.

The circumstances of the two cases are different, but the decision is in point that mere form does not bring a claim within the jurisdiction of the Commissioners.

In my opinion, the Texas claims were not designed to be included in the Commission, but, on the other hand, would have been expressly excluded had there been any belief such an idea would have been entertained.

With such views, I must disclaim jurisdiction of the case.

EXECUTORS OF MR. HOLFORD.

London, November 29, 1854. THE umpire reports that in his opinion the Commission cannot entertain the claim, it being for transactions with the Independent Republic of Texas, prior to its admission as a State of The United States.

JOSHUA BATES, Umpire.

FLORIDA BONDS-(Philip Dawson.)

MR. HORNBY, British Commissioner :

THIS Claim is preferred by the representatives of the late Philip Dawson, who, in the year 1838, in partnership with his brother Frederick Dawson, carried on business as merchants in the city of Baltimore. It appears from the Memorial that both these gentlemen became bankrupts in the month of February, 1843, and that Philip Dawson, on behalf of whose representatives the claim is made, died intestate on the 17th March of the same year.

The facts out of which the claim arose are so nearly identical with those already detailed in the statement of the claim of the executors of the late Mr. Holford, that I do not consider it necessary to do more than refer to the report made by the Committe of Claims to the Senate of The United States under date of the 5th February, 1847. It is as follows:

"That they have duly examined the statements presented in the aforesaid memorial to the consideration of Congress, and find that in the year 1838 the memorialists jointly contracted, in the name of Frederick Dawson, with the authorized agents of the Republic of Texas, to furnish said Republic with a navy, to consist of one ship, two brigs, and three schooners, with their armament and ammunition, together with clothing and four months' provision for four hundred men. These vessels were built, furnished, and equipped by the memorialists, in accordance with the terms of the contract, and were then delivered by the memorialists at the port of Galveston, where they were accepted by the agents of Texas duly authorized.

1

"In consideration of this satisfactory performance of the contract, on the part of the memorialists, the Government of Texas issued to them its bonds for the sum of 560,000 dollars, bearing interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum, payable half-yearly.

"The Committee find that no portion of the money represented by these bonds, principal or interest, has yet been paid. For the faithful redemption of these bonds, the interest and principal of which now amount to 1,017,333 dollars 33 cents, the revenues and public faith of the Republic of Texas were solemnly pledged. The contract which the Committee have thus described, was made and fulfilled at a very critical juncture in the history of Texas,-shortly after the recognition (in 1837) of the infant Republic by The United States, and before any other sovereign power had recognized its independence. Texas was then in a state of great depression, and in circumstances calling for the just sympathy of nations, and requiring on her part extraordinary exertions to maintain an independence then encompassed with danger. The Committee are fully persuaded that to the acquisition of the vessels of war furnished to the Government of Texas by the memorialists, the struggling republic was mainly indebted for her security during that critical period, and her subsequent recognition by Great Britain and France. Her little navy secured the safety of her coast, inspired with fresh confidence her Government and people, and gave her additional consequence abroad; and it appears that Texas has always entertained a just sense of the weighty obligation incurred by her in consequence of the liberal, prompt, and efficient aid rendered to her by the memorialists. Want of means alone has prevented the liquidation of the debt. No disinclination to discharge her obligation to the memorialists has at any time being apparent on the part of Texas. On the contrary, repeated efforts have been made to effect payment of the interest on these bonds; and finally, all the benefits looked for from the possession of these vessels of war having been enjoyed, and a position of security having by their means been attained, the Legislature of Texas passed a Law

authorizing and directing the sale of the aforesaid vessels, the proceeds to be applied in part payment of the indebtedness of the Republic to the memorialists. This Act, however, in anticipation of annexation to The United States, was repealed. In the Treaty of Annexation itself Texas endeavoured to make some provision for the discharge of a portion of this obligation: of the 350,000 dollars stipulated in that Treaty to be paid to Texas by The United States immediately after its ratification, the large proportion of 250,000 dollars was to have been devoted to this object; the remainder of the amount to be liquidated with the rest of the Texan debt, out of the 10,000,000 dollars which were to have been appropriated by The United States for that purpose.

"In the Annexation Resolutions subsequently passed by Congress it was, as the Senate is aware, left to the discretion of the President of the United States to choose one of two alternatives to be proposed to Texas. One of these alternatives left to be settled, by negotiation between the two parties, the terms on which Texas should be admitted to the Confederacy. Had that alternative been offered to Texas, the Committee are induced to believe-from the previous action of that Republic, from her avowed and earnest desire to discharge her obligations to the memorialists, from the action of her Legislature, and from the effort to make the matter a distinct subject of treaty stipulation-that she would have made ample provision for the payment of the memorialists. The other alternative contained no such provision, and it was the one tendered to Texas, thus leaving the memorialists no resort but their present appeal to the Congress of The United States.

"The Conmittee regard the claim of the memorialists as fully sustained on the ground:

"First, That as an inducement to the Act of Annexation, Texas received assurances from the Government of The United States that after her admission into this Confederacy her wishes and her honour as an independent community would be as faithfully consulted and guarded as if express provision had been made to that end by previous agreement.