Page images
PDF
EPUB

MESSRS. LAURENT.

London, 20th December, 1854.

THE umpire reports, that this claim by Messrs. Laurent is for damages which they allege they received in the year 1847 from the conduct of The United States' General Scott, who captured the city of Mexico in that year. The Treaty of Peace between The United States and Mexico settled all claims of Mexican citizens against The United States. Messrs. Laurent claim as British subjects; it is quite settled that none but British subjects, or citizens of The United States, can have any locus standi before this Commission. It is denied, on behalf of The United States, that Messrs. Laurent can claim to be British subjects within the meaning of the words " British subjects," as used in the Convention, by virtue of which this Commission was appointed; and this seems to be the correct view of the case, both on principle and with reference to the reported authorities on the subject. According to the municipal law of England, Messrs. Laurent may be, for some purposes, still British subjects; but the language of the Convention must be construed in accordance with the law of nations, and not according to the laws of any one nation in particular; and it is sufficiently clear that, by the rules of international law, and for the purposes of this Commission, Messrs. Laurent were, for the time being at least, Mexican citizens, and not British subjects.

There are many authorities which bear on this question. Lord Stowell, in giving judgment in the case of the "Matchless" (1 Haggard, page 97), said "upon such a question it has certainly been laid down by accredited writers on general law, and upon grounds apparently not unreasonable, that if a merchant expatriates himself as a merchant, to carry on the trade of another country, exporting its produce, paying its taxes, employing its people, and expending his

spirit, his industry, and his capital in its service, he is to be deemed a merchant of that country, notwithstanding he may, in some respects, be less favoured in that country than one of its native subjects. Our own country, which is charged with holding the doctrine of unextinguishable allegiance more tenaciously than others, is no stranger to this rule. Its highest tribunals, which adjudicate the national character of property taken in war, apply it universally. They privi lege persons residing in a neutral country to trade as freely with the enemies of Great Britain in war as the native subject of that neutral country, although our own resident merchants cannot without special permission of the Crown."

The words of Lord Stowell apply exactly to the case of Messrs. Laurent. They, as far as in them lay, had expatriated themselves: they had resided twenty years in Mexico, carrying on their business, and with every intention of remaining there, as is sufficiently evidenced by their wishing to buy the freehold of the house in which they were living, and, according to Lord Stowell's judgment, ought to be considered Mexican citizens.

In the case of the "President" (5 Robinson, 277), which vessel was captured on a voyage from the Cape of Good Hope to Europe, and claimed for Mr. J. Elmslee as a citizen of The United States, it appeared that he had been a British-born subject, who had gone to the Cape during the last war, and had been employed as American Consul at that place. In giving judgment, Sir William Scott said, "This Court must, I think, surrender every principle on which it has acted in considering the question of national character, if it was to restore this vessel. The claimant is described to have been for many years setted at the Cape, with an established house of trade, and as a merchant of that place, and must be taken as a subject of the enemy's country" (the Dutch being then at war with England).

In a recent case, "The Aina," decided in the Admiralty Court in June last. The claimant was a native of the Free Hans Town of Lubec, and Consul of His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, at Helsingfors in Finland. He had lent

money, before the war with Russia, on bottomry on the ship, which ship was captured by the British fleet in the Baltic. Dr. Lushington, in giving judgment, is reported to have said, "Two questions have arisen with respect to the present claim; first, as to the national character of the claimant, whether he is to be considered an enemy or a neutral with reference to this question. It is stated that he is a citizen of the Free Hans Town of Lubec, and Consul of His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, at Helsingfors, in Finland. Upon this I can put but one construction-that he is a resident in Finland, and carrying on business there. I take it to be a point beyond controversy, that where a neutral, after the commencement of the war, continues to reside in the enemy's country for the purposes of trade, he is considered as adhering to the enemy, and is disqualified from claiming as a neutral altogether."

I am unable to see why the principle laid down so fully in these cases (and many more might be cited), should not be applied to that of Messrs. Laurent. They had, as before observed, long been residents in Mexico, they had a fixed home there, with apparently every intention of continuing to reside there, insomuch that they endeavoured to buy a portion of the soil of Mexico.

I think, therefore, that for the purposes of this Commission, they were Mexican citizens, and not British subjects, and that the Commissioners do not form a tribunal competent to entertain their claims.

JOSHUA BATES, Umpire.

BAY OF FUNDY. (Fishery Cases.)

MR. HORNBY, British Commissioner:

THE American fishing schooner, "Washington," of Newbury, in the State of Massachusetts, was seized, by order of the Customs authorities of Nova Scotia, on the 10th of May, in the year 1843, for fishing with in the Bay of Fundy, contrary to the stipulations of the Treaty of the 20th of October, 1818, and the "Argus," off the coast of Cape Breton, by H. M. Cutter," Sylph," sometime in the following year, on a charge of being within three miles of a line drawn from two headlands inclosing a bay called "Cow Bay," on the northeast coast of Nova Scotia.

In the case of the "Director," another American schooner, also seized for fishing within the prescribed limits, the papers and evidence do not disclose sufficient facts to enable me to form any judgment on the merits. For this reason I am obliged to reject it. I shall, therefore, in the present opinion, confine my observations to the two cases of the "Washington" and "Argus."

In these cases, then, we have to consider whether or not the fishing within the waters alluded to was a violation of the provisions of the Treaty of 1818. To determine this, reference must be had to the language of the Treaty itself, inasmuch as it placed the rights and privileges of the two countries upon a new basis-repealed all former Treaties relating to the subject and declared what should and should not be the respective fishing-grounds of the two nations. It is obvious, therefore, that we ought to confine our attention to the meaning of the Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 1818, as expressed in the language there made use of.

The Article having particular reference to the right to enter and fish within Bays, etc., is the first, and is as follows:

"Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by The United States to take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, it is agreed between the High Contracting Parties that the inhabitants of The United States shall have for ever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands; and also on the coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks from Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice however to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Company; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the southern parts of the coast of Newfoundland here above described, and of the coast of the unsettled bays, harbours, and creeks of Labrador; but as soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled without previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground. And The United States hereby renounce for ever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, not included within the above-mentioned limits: provided however that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbours for the purpose of shelter, and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them.”

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »