stance, in acknowledging to Sr. Zamacona the receipt of the fourth installment, says:

"I am alike honored and gratified at the opportunity thus afforded me to express the President's appreciation of the promptness and exactitude with which the government of a friendly sister republic thus meets its international obligations." (Ib., p. 606.) *

or

These declarations and the entire conduct of Mexico are a sufficient answer to the intimations that she is seeking "to frustrate the execution of the treaty," or "impair * * * obstruct its operation." It will be shown hereafter that whatever action to that end has occurred has been taken, in order of time, first, by the Congress of the United States, second, by the Executive, and third, by the Supreme Court; and that all of these high powers have been inspired by a jealous care to preserve unstained "the honor of the United States."

In entering upon an examination of the diplomatic and domestic precedents affecting claims awards, it is important to bear in mind just what is proposed by the pending treaty. It appears from the extract therefrom published by Mr. Curtis that it only provides for a rehearing of two of the claims, hence it leaves the great body of the work of the Commission organized under the treaty of 1868 undisturbed, as 2,015 cases were referred to and decided by that tribunal. Are there any precedents for such action? Mr. Curtis says: "This is the first time in our diplomatic history that such an attempt has been made." I think it would not be difficult to cite instances where the Government of the United States has united with other nations by solemn treaties in referring important political questions to the arbitrament of a friendly sovereign, and has declined to execute the award when rendered; as in the arbitration by the King of the Netherlands of the northeastern

*The writer was a resident of the City of Mexico when the first installment under the treaty became due. General Diaz had just assumed the Presidency, after an armed contest which had exhausted the resources of the country. He found this international obligation to be met and the national treasury absolutely empty. To meet the emergency he called upon the merchants and bankers of the city, who loaned the treasury $300,000 at 12 per cent. interest.

It is also to be noted that payment is required in gold, and during the whole time the annual installments have been paid they have cost Mexico in exchange from 15 to 25 per cent. premium, the latter figure being nearer the rate of the last payments.

boundary, under the treaty with Great Britain of 1827. But, confining the inquiry to the limit of discussion observed by the pamphlet, I propose to examine the action of our Government respecting moneys received from foreign nations by virtue of treaties, awards, or diplomatic settlements of private claims. Mr. Curtis cites the first claims convention with Mexico, of 1839, and it may be well to begin with it, referring to others in order of date. The work commenced by the convention of 1839 was not concluded until after the treaty of peace of 1848, by virtue of which the United States assumed the payment of all claims of American citizens against Mexico, released Mexico therefrom, set aside from the money to be paid Mexico for territorial acquisitions $3,250,000, and provided for the adjudication of claims by a commission "whose awards shall be final and conclusive." (Treaties and Conventions, ed. 1873, pp. 568-9.) This Commission concluded its labors, and the fund provided by the treaty was distributed to the claimants who had obtained awards. One of the awards, that in favor of George A. Gardiner, on which $428,750 had been paid, it was afterwards alleged had been obtained by fraud, upon a claim very similar to that of La Abra. The attention of Congress having been called to it, a special committee was appointed by the Senate, with power to call for persons and papers; the facts developed by the investigation were furnished to the Law Department of the Government; the claimant was convicted and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment; bills were filed in the United States Courts of New York and the District of Columbia; a decree obtained "that said award be, and the same is hereby, in all things reversed and annulled;" and some $250,000 recovered back into the Treasury. (S. R. 182, 33d Cong., Ist Sess.; H. Ex. Doc. 103, 48th Cong., 1st Sess.)

Another claimant before the same Commission was Alex. J. Atocha, whose claim was rejected on its merits. He appealed to Congress, and fifteen years after the adjournment of the Commission that body passed an act authorizing the Court of Claims to re-examine his adjudicated claim, and an award was rendered in his favor by that tribunal for $207,852, which

was paid out of the Mexican fund remaining in the Treasury. (8 Ct. Cl., 427.)

In 1858 the governments of the United States and China. entered into a convention to adjust the claims of American citizens against China; the sum of $735,258 was paid by China; and, in accordance with the treaty, a Commission examined and finally adjudicated the claims. Nearly ten years after the Commission had concluded its labors, upon petition of one of the rejected claimants, Nott & Co., Congress passed an act authorizing and directing the Attorney General to re-examine the case (15 Stat., 440), which was accordingly done, and $38,242 was paid to the claimant out of the Chinese fund, of which a large balance remained in the Treasury after paying all the awards of the Commission. And twenty years after the dissolution of the Commission another rejected claimant, the "Caldera," secured the passage of an act by Congress (20 Stat., 171,) reopening that case, and submitting it to a new adjudication by the Court of Claims, whereby the sum of $113,077 was paid out of the same fund.

A Joint Claims Commission was organized under the convention between the United States and New Granada in 1857, and, among others, five cases were finally decided by the umpire, awarding the American claimants, in all, $333,888. Owing to the protest of the government of New Granada, the certificates of payment provided by the treaty were not delivered to the claimants. A new convention was agreed upon in 1864, and the five cases were resubmitted to the new Joint Commission upon their merits. In four of the cases the former award was set aside and the claims rejected, and the fifth case was dismissed and the original award paid.

The claim of the "Caroline," originating in 1847, was, under instructions of four successive Secretaries of State, urged upon the Brazilian government by the American Ministers, and after a tedious examination and lengthy negotiations, was finally settled and the money paid to the Minister of the United States in 1867. The charge of fraud in the settlement was intimated by the Brazilian Minister in Washington; a

new examination of the claim on its merits was made by the Law Officer of the State Department, who decided that "Brazil was not justly liable;" and it was found that only a part of the money paid by Brazil had been remitted to the State Department. This part was returned by the Secretary of State, the facts were laid before Congress, and that body appropriated $57,500 to refund to Brazil "money erroneously claimed and paid to the United States." (18 Stat., 70; S. Ex. Doc. 52, 42d Cong. 1st Sess.)

None of these precedents seem to have attracted the attention of Mr. Curtis, but he notices the claims convention with Venezuela of 1866, and quotes Secretary Seward's position as to the finality of the awards under that compact, which he asserts, with reiterated confidence, negatives "the possibility of disturbing an award made by an international tribunal of arbitration." In the light of recent events, this citation becomes singularly infelicitous. Since Mr. Seward wrote his note in 1869, such fraud has been developed as has constrained the Congress of United States, by a unanimous vote, to request the President to open negotiations with Venezuela for the creation of a new commission and for setting aside the awards of the former tribunal; and President Cleveland has announced that a convention to that end has been signed, which, it is understood, is now before the Senate for ratification.

Mr. Curtis is equally unhappy in the citation of another precedent-the diplomatic agreement of 1884 with Hayti, whereby the claims of two American citizens were submitted to the arbitrament of Mr. Justice Strong. The usual stipulation as to the finality and binding force of the award is quoted in extenso (p. 8), and elsewhere (p. 15) the precedent is dwelt upon, to show the inconsistent and unwise conduct of the then Secretary of State in signing the Weil-Abra treaty. It must be believed that the author was not aware of the fact that, notwithstanding the unimpeachable character of the eminent arbitrator, the government of Hayti has protested to the Department of State against the the enforcement of both of

the awards, one on the ground of judicial error, and the other of fraud and perjury on the part of the claimant; and that, following the precedent in the Gardiner case, of the Mexican Commission, heretofore cited, a bill in equity has been filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, praying “that it may be adjudged and decreed that said award was obtained by fraud," and that an injunction be issued against the enforcement of the same. (The Republic of Hayti vs. Adolphe H. Lazare, &c.)

With this array of precedents, it would seem unnecessary to further extend the list of cases. It thus appears that in the last thirty years our Government has repeatedly and in a variety of ways annulled, set aside, or re-opened awards or final settlements of claims, notwithstanding the solemn stipulations of treaties, in many instances, providing for the final and conclusive character of their first adjustment. The cases cited embrace no less than eleven different occasions in which Congress has lent its approval to such action by the passage of acts or resolutions to bring it about or carry it into effect. And to accomplish the annulment or revision of the awards, almost every method of procedure known to modern jurisprudence or diplomatic practice has been resorted to by our Government to protect the honor of the nation or do justice to claimants. These procedures may be classified as follows:

First. By a resubmission of the cases on which awards had been rendered to a new international commission, as under the conventions with Columbia and Venezuela.

Second. By an independent resort, through bills in equity, to the established domestic tribunals of the country, as in the Gardiner case under the treaty with Mexico of 1848, or in the Lazare case under the agreement with Hayti of 1884.

Third. By resubmission, through an act of Congress, to a special tribunal, as the Court of Claims, in the Atocha case under the Mexican treaty of 1848, or the "Caldera” case under the Chinese convention of 1858.

Fourth. By reference, through an act of Congress, to the Executive, clothing the Attorney General with quasi judicial