Page images

March 4.-The Commissioners again attended at the office of the Commission, and minutely examined the evidence offered in the several cases submitted to them, and decided that the agents should argue the question of damage in the case of the Messrs. Rogers.

March 6.--The case of the “ Frances and Eliza," which vessel was seized at New Orleans by The United States' Revenue Officers, was considered.

Mr. Hannen presented the claim of Duncan Gibb, for the seizure of the ship “ Baron Renfrew," in California, and the claim of James Crooks, for amount of judgment of the Court of Admiralty, in the case of the “Lord Nelson,” which was seized prior to the war of 1812, by The United States' ship of war “Oneida,” on Lake Ontario.

March 13.—Mr. Hannen presented on behalf of the Government of Her Majesty the following claims :

Messrs. Glen and Co.
Maurice, Evans and Co.
Barque Pearl.
The ship Herald.
Charles Green.
The James Mitchell.
Hudson Bay Company.
Claim for drawback.
For supplies furnished American troops.
For seizure of the schooner Cadboro'.
For interruption of trade of the Prince of Wales.
For return of certain Revenue duties.
For seizure of the Beaver and Marydare.
The Union.
Joseph Wilson.
The Young Dixon.
Godfrey Pattison and Co.
Messrs. Butterfield and Brothers.
The Irene.
Messrs. Cotesworth, Powell and Pryor.

H. U. Derwig and others-Florida Bondholders.
Miller and Mackintosh.
George Houghton.
Honourable W. Black.
Sam. C. Johnston.
Thomas Whyte.
Alexander McLeod.
P. B. Murphy
Charles B. Hall.
The Mary Anne.
The Sir Robert Peel.
The Great Western Steamship Company.
G. Rotchford Clarke.
Representatives of Colonel Elias Durnford.
Messrs. Baker and Co.
Anglo-Mexican Mint Co.
The Crosthwaite.
Shipowners' Society.
The Prosperity.
The Duckenfield.
The Science.

March 14.-General Thomas presented Papers relative to the following claims on behalf of the Government of The United States :

Brig Creole.
Schooner John.
Brig Enterprise.
Schooner Washington.
The Levan Lank.
Brigantine Volusia.
Brig Cyrus.
Schooner Director.
The Maria Dolores.
The Tigris and Seamew.
The Only Son.
The Julius and Edward.
Brig Lawrence.

Brig Charlotte.
The Jubilee.
John McClure and others.
The Cicero.
The Olive Branch.
Brig Evelina.
Schooner Hero.
Schooner Washington, seized 1818.
Schooner Argus.
The Robert.
Schooner Hermosa.
Barque John A. Robb.
The Joseph Cowperthwait.
Schooner Pallas.
The Elvira.
For return of duties levied on woollen goods.
George Atwood.

March 15.—The following claims for return of money collected for duties in New York were presented by Mr. Hannen, viz., of

James Buckley.
Arnon Buckley.
James Mallalieu.
Francis S. Buckley.
Charles Kenworthy.
George Shaw.
Samuel Bradbury.
John Platt.
Joseph Wrigley.
William Broadbent.
Charles Clifton.
James Shaw.
Amon Schofield.
He also presented the claims of
William Bottomley's Executors.
James Rogers.

The Executors of James Holford.
Sam. Shaw.
Sam. Bradbury.
Platt and Duncan.
George Shaw.
John Taylor.
Alfred T. Wood.

Mr. Hannen also presented the claims of Charles Wirgman, agent of Timothy Wiggin, J. Knight and Co., and of fifty-one others, for repayment of excess of duties charged on cotton goods in ports of The United States.

Hearing was had in the “ Frances and Eliza," and the case was submitted for the decision of the Commissioners.

March 17.-Further hearing was had in the case of the barque “ Jones," which vessel had been seized at St. Helena on charge of being engaged in the Slave Trade, and for being in British waters without a national character.

March 18.—The hearing in the case of the barque “ Jones,” was continued, and the claim was finally submitted to the Commissioners.

March 21.–Mr. Hannen presented, by leave, the claim of Messrs. Weymouth and others, respecting certain bonds guaranteed by the territory of Florida.

Hearing was had on the claim of Duncan Gibb, when the case was closed and submitted for decision.

March 23.—Hearing was had in the claim of Thomas Tyson, relative to the seizure of the schooner “ Fidelity,” at Sierra Leone, on a charge of having smuggled goods on a previous voyage, and the case was submitted.

The claim of James Crooks, relative to the “ Lord Nelson," was also heard and submitted.

March 24.- After a long conference, the Commissioners were unable to agree on the question of damage in the cases of the “Frances and Eliza," the “ Baron Renfrew," and the Messrs. Rogers. Mr. Upham being of opinion that in the two former cases, the seizures being justifiable, and founded on probable cause, The United States were not liable for the damages alleged to have been sustained, and in the latter, that the sudden change from a state of savagedom to comparative civilization ought not to be allowed to prejudice the rights of foreign merchants. Mr. Hornby disagreed in this view of these claims, considering that in the last case the dates showed the change was not only to have been anticipated, but that quite sufficient time had elapsed between the passing of the laws and the sailing of the claimant's cargoes, for them to have known the provisions of the Revenue in respect of such cargoes.

March 27.-The Commissioners took into consideration the voluminous evidence submitted in the case of the

Jones," and having examined it, agreed to draw up minutes of their opinions with a view to a further conference.

March 28.—The Commissioners attended to-day at the office, and received several of the claimants.

March 29.-The Commissioners attended at the office to-day, and examined the evidence in the case of the

Fidelity,” submitted by General Thomas.

March 30.—The Commissioners attended and held a long conference on the several land claims which had been submitted to them, and agreed that inasmuch as there existed competent courts in The United States for the investigation of all questions of title to lands within their jurisdiction, it was not competent for the Commissioners to enter into the merits of these claims, and they accordingly rejected them.

March 31.—Mr. Hornby informed Mr. Upham that having gone through the evidence in the case of the Messrs. Rogers, he was of opinion that if it could be proved they had actually sustained a bond fide loss, he was, as a matter of indulgence, willing to indemnify them ; but that under the

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »