cated its contents to the claimants, informing them that they must furnish satisfactory proof of the losses sustained. Accordingly, on the 11th March, 1851, Mr. Buckham sent into the Foreign Office a declaration, accompanied with vouchers of the losses, in which he accepts the estimate of the value of the vessel made by the Collector, and fixes the damage beyond such actual value at one thousand six hundred and ninety-five dollars. In March, 1851, these vouchers were forwarded to the Government of The United States; and in the month of February, 1852, Mr. Crampton called the attention of Mr. Webster to the fact, that the statement of losses, with vouchers, as required by Mr. Webster, had been furnished for upwards of a year, and that nothing had, up to that date, been done towards effecting a settlement. In July, 1852, Mr. Crampton again called the attention of the then acting Secretary of State of The United States to the facts mentioned in his former letter, and, in the same month, received for answer from Mr. Hunter that application had been made to Congress on behalf of the owners of the vessel; but up to the date of the Convention under which this Commission acts, no appropriation of any sum had been made.

In the report which the Collector of San Francisco made to Mr. Webster, to which I have already referred, he says, "The proceedings against the Captain, and the sale of his vessel, I regarded as wholly unjustifiable and oppressive, and endeavoured, so far as I could, to protect him; I was even threatened with an attachment for contempt for keeping an Inspector on board of her after the sale by the sheriff. I have before me a letter from Captain King, an old shipmaster, and fully competent to judge, estimating the value of the brig at six thousand dollars."

On the hearing of this case my colleague appeared to think the readiness of the owners to accept the estimate of Captain King somewhat suspicious, nor did he consider that any damage was sustained that the Government were liable to make good, beyond the value of the vessel. I have the misfortune to differ from him on both these points. So far

P

from considering the willingness of the owners to accept the six thousand dollars a suspicious circumstance, I look upon it rather as indicative of a desire to meet any reasonable offer that would lead to a prompt settlement; and it appears to me that the very direction given by Mr. Webster, relative to the furnishing of vouchers of losses sustained, implies that it was supposed that further losses, beyond the one loss of the vessel, were sustained, which the Government in a spirit of justice were liable to make good; moreover, these vouchers were furnished, and are at this moment in the possession of The United States' Government, and certified copies of them have been laid before us. No exception has ever been made to these documents during the two years that the officers of The United States' Government have had them in their possession, and I think, therefore, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that we are bound to assume them correct.

Under these circumstances I conceive that, in allowing this claim to the extent of 7,695 dollars, we are only doing that which Congress, actuated by a sense of justice, would have done, and that, in the face of the vouchers furnished, we should be doing the claimants a grievous injustice if we limited our award to the mere value of the vessel. To this sum, then, of 7,695 dollars, interest from the date of furnishing the vouchers, at the rate of five per cent per annum, must, in accordance with the course adopted by this Commission in other cases, be added.

In this case Mr. Upham dissented from the opinion of the British Commissioner, but he has given no written judgment.

London, 29th November, 1854.

THE umpire awards as due from the Government of The United States to the owners of the "Lady Shaw Stewart," or their legal representatives, the sum of six thousand dollars on the 15th January, 1855.

JOSHUA BATES, Umpire.

THE "BEAVER.”

MR. HORNBY, British Commissioner:

THIS is a claim on the part of the Hudson Bay Company against The United States, for the detention of their steamvessel, the "Beaver," between the 28th of December, 1851, and the 24th of January, 1852. The facts in connection with this claim are shortly as follows. Until 1849 The United States' Government had not established any Customhouse for the Puget Sound district of Oregon; and even so late as 1852, when the "Beaver" made her first voyage after the establishment of a Custom-house at Olympia, the extreme point of Puget's Sound, the Custom-house officer, according to the evidence before the Commissioners, excused himself for not being prepared wth the usual printed forms of entry, certificates, &c., on the ground that there had not yet been time for the preparation of these forms since the establishment of the office. The cause of Olympia being made a point of entry arose, it seems, from the fact of the inconvenience to which traders were exposed in having to go 300 miles out of their course to enter their cargoes, &c., at Astoria, the first and then also recently established Customhouse in Oregon.

66

It appears, the "Beaver" was employed in towing up the Mary Dare" to the Company's fort, Nisqually; that she was in ballast, having a few goods on board for barter with the Indians; and there were also two young ladies on board the "Mary Dare." These young ladies were landed at Nisqually, after which the "Beaver" and the "Mary Dare" proceeded to Olympia for the purpose of entry. At this port the Captain and the Company's Agent say they informed the

Customs' authorities of the fact of the "Beaver" being in ballast, and also that she had some goods on board, enumerating them from memory; and having talked over with the the officer the duties payable thereon, and seeing that nothing was arranged, the Captain considered that he had done all that he was required to do. He was surprised, however, to learn that the "Beaver" and "Mary Dare” had been seized for a breach of the revenue laws. With the seizure of the latter we have nothing to do. The United States' authorities repudiated it, and ordered the immediate release of the ship; and no claim, therefore, is made, and I think very properly, in respect of it.

No charge, however, was ever brought against the "Beaver," or any pretence alleged for its seizure and detention. Al the libel stated was, that the Captain, not having entered the goods on board, the latter were liable to seizure, were seized accordingly, and would be proceeded against according to law. Independently of the fact of there being no charge made against the ship, no law of The United States has been cited which would have justified such a charge.

That the goods were, in strictness, liable to seizure and condemnation is not disputed, although, under the circumstances, the seizure is alleged to have been vexatious and oppressive; and that it was so considered by The United States' authorities is evidenced by the facts, that giving a liberal construction to the law, and in all probability having regard to the then very recent establishment of Olympia as a port of entry, they ordered the goods to be returned, which was accordingly done, less some few packages that were lost while in the custody of the storekeeper.

It was assumed, in the course of the argument against this claim, that the goods must be considered as having been adjudicated upon by a competent court, and condemned. That they were, in strictness, seizable is admitted; but I do not see any evidence to lead to, or which justifies, the presumption that the libel was ever even heard by a court, still less that the goods were actually condemned.

There is literally no evidence before the Commissioners