ART. 6. Les Hautes Parties Contractantes payeront en parts égales les dépenses de l'arbitrage qui est ici convenu; et elles s'engagent à accepter la décision du dit arbitre dans chacun des dits cas comme finale et obligatoire, et à donner à cette décision plein effet et vigueur de bonne foi, sans délais qui ne seraient pas justifiables, sans réserve et sans évasion quelle qu'elle soit.

En foi de quoi, les soussignés ont signé la présente et y ont apposé leurs sceaux le vingthuitième jour de Mai, 1884. 1

Award in the claim of Antonio Pelletier against the Republic of Hayti, given in Washington, June 13, 1885.

In pursuance of the protocol, dated May 28, 1884, between the Hon. Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State of the United States, and the Hon. Stephen Preston, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the Republic of Hayti, representing their respective governments, after having taken before the Chief Justice of the United States the oath required by the fourth article of the protocol, I have investigated the claim of Antonio Pelletier against the Republic of Hayti, and I now submit the following statement and award:

This claim is large, amounting, as presented to me, to the sum of $2,466,480. It is based upon an alleged wrongful arrest, trial, conviction, and imprisonment of the claimant by the Haytian Government, together with the seizure of a bark, of which the claimant was master, its cargo and money on board, their condemnation and confiscation. The principal evidence presented in support of the claim consists of memorials and protests of the claimant, as also his sworn testimony, together with the testimony of one Thomas Collar, who was ship's mate on the bark during the voyage she made from Mobile to Hayti. There is, however, some other evidence of minor importance.

Pelletier, the claimant, is a native of France, but he was naturalized in New York in 1852. He had acted as sailing master of several small vessels on the coasts of South America and Central America during several years prior to 1851. Between that date and 1859 he appears to have had his residence partly in New York, partly in Chicago, and partly in Troy, some of the time engaged in sailing vessels out of New York. In 1859 he purchased an old bark, named Ardennes at Havana, in Cuba, took her to Jacksonville, Florida, to obtain an American registry,

1 F. DE MARTENS, Nouveau Recueil Général, 2o série, t. XI, P. 798.

shipped in her a cargo of rum, sugar, etc., and cleared for the Canary Islands, lying in north latitude between the twenty-seventh and twentyninth degrees. He did not, however, go to those islands, being driven, as he states, far out of his course by heavy gales. He was discovered at the mouth of the Congo River acting suspiciously. There his bark was seized and sent to New York by an American cruiser. At New York she was libelled for attempted slave dealing, and after a considerable lapse of time the libel was brought to trial. The trial resulted in the dismissal of the libel, but with a certificate that there was probable cause for the seizure.

Meanwhile, in 1860, Pelletier, as he states, through the agency of one Parker, bought at the marshal's sale the bark William, which had been condemned at Key West as a slaver and ordered to be sold. His memorial to the Secretary of State, made out in 1864, to which he has sworn before me, asserts that the price paid to the marshal was, as near as he could recollect, something over $10,000'. He further swears that after the sale some person ran away with the bark and the deputy marshal who was on board, but that she was recovered and brought back in four or five hours by the United States authorities, aided by a schooner, and that the salvage he had to pay, together with commissions to Parker, with some repairs and other expenses, made the aggregate of bills for the purchase, salvage, and expenses some hundreds over $ 16,000.

The statements, as well as others respecting the value of the vessel, appear to me to be incredible, and they tend strongly to diminish my confidence in other statements and testimony of the claimant. By the marshal's return it appears that the bark, with her tackle and chronometer, was sold to Parker for $ 1605. That sum therefore was all that was paid to the marshal, and not $10,000 as the claimant swears. Parker was the claimant's agent to buy. Of course Pelletier paid to the marshal no more, and he had to pay Parker only commissions. Besides, the reliable evidence in the case satisfies me that the bark was not worth more than from five to seven thousand dollars at most. She was an old vessel of 21545/5 tons measurement, and she was known as a condemned slaver. So in regard to the $6000 claimed to have been paid for salvage, commissions, and other small expenses. It appears that the bark was recovered by the United States authorities, who charged nothing, and a schooner, on board of which was the claimant, and that she was brought back within four or five hours. So, when, soon after, the bark was taken to Mobile and some repairs were put upon her there, the

claimant's statement is that with those repairs the vessel cost him about $30,000 as near as he could recollect in 1864, when everything must have been fresh in his memory.

What the repairs at Mobile were, is stated by Thomas Collar, the mate who superintended what was done. The bark was recalked, deck and hold put in order, the cabin was overhauled, and there was some painting. Including the seamen, about fourteen men were employed about two weeks at $3 a day. The total cost was therefore less than $600. Yet the claimant states on oath that including the repairs, the bark cost him about $30,000, and was worth fully $35,000. She was as I have said, a bark measuring 2154595 tons. A respectable witness who was engaged in shipbuilding between 1855 and 1860, has testified that $55 a ton was a high price for new wellbuilt vessels, copper-bottomed and copper-fastened, at that time. At that rate a new vessel of the size of the William would not have been worth more than about one-third of what this old bark cost the claimant, as he testifies. His testimony in this particular can not be true.

After the arrival of the bark at Mobile, to which port she was brought from Key West, Pelletier transferred the title he had to one Emile Delaunay, of New Orleans, a member of the firm of Delaunay, Rice & Co., of which, as he alleges, he was a partner, for the purpose, as he states, of procuring a New Orleans registry'. The transfer was to Delaunay, and not to the firm. He now alleges that though he made the transfer he retained the actual ownership and had a bill of sale from Delaunay. But in his memorial he did not claim that he had a bill of sale. In that he asserted only that retaining the ownership, he took from Delaunay an irrevocable power of attorney to control and dispose of the vessel as he pleased. The statements do not harmonize, and it is difficult to see why a power of attorney was taken if he had a bill of sale. On the faith of the transfer the bark was registered, not, however, at New Orleans, where Delaunay resided, but at Mobile, where she did not belong, and where neither Pelletier nor Delaunay resided. She was registered, not in the name of Delaunay as owner (his name was Emile Delaunay), but as owned by Edward Lee Launde, or Edward Lee Launa, or Edward de Launa, and the person calling himself by that name swore that he was the only owner. It is not quite clear whether the registry was for Edward Lee Launde, as owner, or for Edward Lee Launa, or Edward de Launa. The duplicate certificate of registry, signed by the register and deputy collector, on file at the Treasury Department at Washington, gives the name

'Edward Lee Launde'. The vessel's duplicate has not been presented. The record at Mobile gives the name Edward de Launa or Edward Lee Launa, it is uncertain which. Neither was Delaunay's name. That, as I have said, appears to have been Emile Delaunay.

Why the register was obtained at Mobile in the name given as owner rather than in Pelletier's name, if he was the owner, when he was in Mobile at the time the registry was made, it would be hard to conjecture, unless it was desired while obtaining a register, at the same time to conceal the true ownership of the bark for some unavowed reason. Delaunay evidently had a very close connection with the bark and with her outfit and voyage, a connection which it is difficult to account for if he was not the real owner of the vessel and of most, if not all, the property on board, and if Pelletier was anything more than the ship's master.

Though Pelletier claims that he purchased the bark at Key West, in his examination before me he has sworn that Delaunay paid for it. It is proved also that the repairs at Mobile were settled for by Delaunay's clerk.

Pelletier paid nothing. It is proved that when the bark sailed for Carthagena, Delaunay came to Mobile and left the ship only when she was in the lower bay, returning in a tug which took her down from the wharf. It is proved also that Pelletier had nothing to do with the tug, and that its services, if settled for at all, must have been paid by Delaunay. He also attended to the outgoing manifest, which described Pelletier only as master of the bark. Delaunay furnished and put on board the 5 franc pieces and gold alleged to have been shipped, and if there was any insurance upon either the vessel or its contents, which does not appear, it must have been obtained by Delaunay without instruction. Pelletier swears that he paid no attention to insurance.

More than this, a witness, Louis Moses, who has been a resident of New Orleans ever since 1852, engaged in exchange brokerage and insurance, has testified before me that in 1860 he was intimately acquainted with the firm of Delaunay, Rice & Co., holding a power of attorney to transact its business; that he furnished to Delaunay money to fit out the bark; that on the 24th day of October 1860, three days before the bark cleared from Mobile, he advanced to Delaunay $ 15,850, for which he took Delaunay's notes, which he now has unpaid, and exhibited to me, and that he and another man, whom he named, each advanced the further sum of $5000; that to obtain this money Delaunay told him he had to put money on board the bark; that he expected a great profit from it; that the

bark was fitted out to go to some places in Hayti; that Antonio Pelletier was the captain, and was to engage to import some negroes into Louisiana, and that was the reason why money was to be put on board; that the negroes had been already bought, and that Pelletier was to go and pay for them and bring them. The witness testified further that he himself was to have an interest in the venture, and that Delaunay promised that he should have one hundred of the negroes for the money he advanced. He further testified that the scheme was to land the negroes on a desert island west of the Mississippi, near the mainland of Louisiana. This testimony has not been impeached, nor has it been discredited by anything that has appeared before me. I have not been able to discover any inherent contradiction or improbability in it. If believed, it has a direct and potential bearing upon the merits of the claim made on behalf of Pelletier. It bears upon the ownership of the bark, and of the money on board, as well as upon the character of the voyage which the bark made. It accounts for Delaunay's putting the money on board, paying the bills, being present at the bark's departure, taking a registry in the name of Edward Lee Launde, or Edward de Launa, at Mobile instead of New Orleans, where he resided, and when Pelletier was there, and many other things which I shall notice. hereafter. It is not to be overlooked, however, that according to his own testimony the witness was a participant in fitting out an illegal voyage to the extent of furnishing a portion of the funds. for it, with full knowledge of the uses to which it was planned the money should be devoted. In other words, he was an accomplice. His testimony, therefore, must be weighed with caution, and, if relied upon, should find elsewhere, as I think it does, corroboration.

At Mobile, as the claimant's memorial states, he purchased and put on board the bark a full cargo of about 200,000 feet of pitch-pine lumber, sawed to his order, to fill a contract he had in New Granada, and also took 36 barrels of ship bread to fill an order from Carthagena. The memorial states, also, that he had on board 36,000 5 franc pieces (silver), $ 3000 in American gold, and about $2000 in Spanish-American gold ounces and fractions of ounces, meaning to buy gold dust of Antioquia. He also took on board two kegs of powder and some more; also a large number of pistols and some guns or rifles. Neither the powder nor the guns or pistols were mentioned in the ship's outgoing manifest. On the contrary, the manifest which he signed and delivered to the collector, and which he swore contained a full, just, and true

account of all the goods, wares, and merchandise on board the vessel, and that if other goods, wares or merchandise should be put on board previous to sailing, he would immediately report the same to the collector, mentioned only 118,000 feet of lumber and 29 barrels of bread, marked 'Various, and J. B. & Co.; value $ 2214. 40'. The manifest was sworn to by Pelletier on the 27th day of October 1860. On the same day a shipper's manifest of the cargo of the bark William, Pelletier, master', was signed, verified and filed in the collector's office exhibiting as shipped on the bark 29 barrels of bread and 118,000 feet of lumber, marked 'J. B. & Co.; value $ 2214. 40'. Both manifest, doubtless, describe the same property, but the latter declared the articles to have been shipped by M. S. Charlock & Co., and intended to be landed at Carthagena. Of the lumber 34,000 feet were loaded on deck and only 84,000 feet in the hold. Why it was thus loaded for a contemplated voyage of some 3000 miles, when the capacity of the hold was sufficient for fully twice the whole quantity, is not apparent. It may have been for convenience of loading and unloading, or it may have been to give to the voyage a colorable appearance of legitimate trading.

At Mobile Pelletier had shipped a crew, consisting of fourteen besides himself, including cook, steward, and clerk. Thomas Collar the second mate had been introduced to him at Key West, and had come with him in the bark from Key West to Mobile, where he was given the superintendence of repairs.

At Key West he was known as Thomas Collar, yet at Mobile he signed the shipping articles with the name Samuel Gerdon, was subsequently addressed by Pelletier as Gerdon, and later, in the following voyage, signed a protest with the same name. At first Collar testified before me that he signed in his true name Thomas Collar but afterward, when confronted by his protest, he acknowledged that he had used the name Samuel Gerdon, and accounted for the false personation by saying that the shipping master at Mobile had given him a protection paper with that name, alleging that he had no blank to fill otherwise. The seamen, or a portion of them, as Pelletier states, were furnished to him by a shipping master at New Orleans, it may be presumed at the instance of Delaunay, who resided there. They were forwarded from New Orleans to Mobile by steamboat. They were Frenchmen, and they are described by Pelletier as rowdies and highbinders, such as are in general only to be found in Southern seaports'. Indeed, in the entire crew, including cook, clerk, and steward, there was but one Ame

rican. Some other shipments of sailors were afterward made at other ports during the voyage, but they also were Frenchmen or Spaniards.

The ship cleared for Carthagena on the 27th of October 1860, and arrived in that port late in November. There, as stated by Pelletier, the lumber on deck was unloaded, some gold dust was purchased, with some other articles, and some of the private stores of the captain were sold. There Meyers, the chief mate, deserted and escaped on board a British man of war. A revolution then in progress having prevented the sale of the remaining lumber, the bark cleared for Rio Hacha, a port some over one hundred miles east-northeast from Carthagena, having shipped at least one seaman, a Spaniard, and taken on board one Bina, a colored refugee, and Juan Cortez, his wife, child, and servant as passengers for Rio Hacha. Cortez had some freight with him. He and his family were dark, probably mulattoes.

Finding the winds and currents contrary, and having lost an anchor, the bark bore away to the northward and continued on that course about 700 miles. Collar testifies that when the anchor was lost, a day or two after leaving Carthagena, Cortez, whose wife was sick, desired to be put on shore. Pelletier's testimony on this subject is inconsistent with itself. At first he stated Cortez desired to be landed at the first accessible port. That was Carthagena, within two hours' sail from the place where the anchor was lost. But he did not go thither. He said he wanted to proceed on his voyage. In his later testimony he represents Cortez as asking, when near Grand Cayman, to be landed in Jamaica or some port in that direction. Whether after he has sailed so far away from Rio Hacha he intended to return on a long tack to that port, I do not deem it necessary to inquire. He had passengers on board whom he had contracted to deliver there with their freight.

But it may well be that Cortez was anxious and alarmed at being carried so far from his place of destination and consented, even desired, to be landed at Grand Cayman. To this Pelletier assented and put into the port of Georgetown, on that island, arriving there December 19, 1860. There he settled with Cortez, taking from him all his freight at a valuation of $1000 and deducting $500 for his services. I do not find that the settlement was obtained by threats or duress, or that it was any other than amicable, though it was subsequently contended that the freight belonged to one Cano, British vice-consul at Carthagena, that Cortez had only the care of it, and that it had been extorded from him

by Pelletier. I do not find sufficient evidence to justify such a contention.

On the 24th of December the bark cleared for Port au Prince in Hayti. It is not quite apparent why she was cleared for Hayti. She had cleared from Carthagena for Rio Hacha, professedly in order to dispose there of the lumber in her hold. If her course afterward to the vicinity of Grand Cayman was really to obtain offing for a long tack to Rio Hacha it is not apparent why she did not clear again for that port. It was little more distant than Port au Prince, and the bark would have been assisted by wind and currents. The voyage to Port au Prince was to the windward, against strong northeast winds and strong currents. No explanation has been given of this, and none appears, except perhaps a purpose to obtain a cargo of guano at the island of Navassa, eighty or one hundred miles west of Hayti. The claimant testifies that at the beginning of his voyage he had an understanding with Delaunay, that if he found it practicable, he should bring back to New Orleans a cargo of guano, and that at the island of Grand Cayman he arranged with a person to show him guano, and further, that when first at Port au Prince, before he had any trouble with the authorities, he applied to one Vil Maximilian for fifty men and a few women to go with him to the island of Navassa, and there load his vessel with guano. It is evident, however, from what subsequently occurred, that there never was any serious purpose to look for such a cargo.

At Port au Prince, where the bark arrived some time after the middle of January 1861, the remainder of the lumber, or most of it, was sold, but before much of it was delivered several of the crew, alleged to have been disorderly, were sent on shore and imprisoned at Pelletier's instance. Bina, the refugee from Carthagena, also left the ship and denounced it to the Haytian authorities as a slaver. The claimant's testimony is that this charge was made after Bina had demanded $100 from him to pay for a passage back to the Spanish Main, with threats in case of refusal, and that the demand was refused. The imprisoned sailors also preferred accusations. Very naturally and reasonably, the police boarded the vessel and made a partial search. They found arms and ammunition on board, an unusual number of hand cuffs, alleged to have been twenty pairs, but which, as Pelletier and Collar testify, were only eight in number, and they found a large number of water casks. Pelletier and Collar swear there were only eight such casks, but the former admits that he had in addition from twenty to twenty-five barrels, which he filled with salt water for ballast. All these

things are acknowledged accompaniments of slave trading. The police did not find the kegs of powder, nor any of the pistols that had been on board. These may have been sold before the search was made or have escaped observation. The search does not appear to have been very thorough. In view of the accusation of Bina and the imprisoned sailors, and of the results of the search, as well as of his application to Maximilian for laborers to go to Navassa, the Haytian authorities evidently had strong suspicions, and I think, with much reason, that the bark was a slaver out on an illegitimate cruise. Yet, after a short delay, they gave up the vessel to the claimant, and at his request gave him a clearance for New Orleans. Their suspicions, however, were not wholly allayed. When the bark sailed, the latter part of February, she was followed a considerable distance by an armed vessel, apparently to observe what course she would take. She did not go westward on the most direct course to New Orleans. Had she taken that course she would have had favoring winds and assisting currents, and she might have taken in her course the guano islands of Navassa. Had there been any real design to take a cargo of guano she must have been taken that course. There was nothing to hinder it. The bark was in good order. The islands were in possession of an American company, and laborers were doubtless there to assist in loading vessels. There could have been no need of laborers taken from Hayti. But instead of taking that course the bark turned eastward around Mole St. Nicole, and continued her course, on the north side of Hayti, against fresh breezes and swift currents, on one route indeed, toward New Orleans, but obviously not the best at that season of the year.

According to Pelletier's statement, finding he had not sufficient ballast, though he had more than 50 tons, he put into Man-of-War Bay, in the island of Grand Inagua, to obtain more. There, by drifting on a reef, the fastenings of his rudder were broken, and it hung only on the forward pintle. It needed two new pintles to replace those which were broken. They might, doubtless, have been supplied by any blacksmith at Inagua, but after lashing the rudder with chains the bark put to sea. Still, not steering well, Pelletier, as he states, endeavored to make a port (La Plata) in San Domingo, in an opposite direction from the course to New Orleans, in order in that port to make repairs. He was soon found on the banks of Caicos, east of Inagua, and soon after far to the southwest, off the coast of Hayti, near Mole St. Nicole, where he was endeavoring to beat to the windward. Several days he was in sight from Cape Haytien, where

there was a good harbor open to commerce, which he could easily have entered in a few hours, and where he might have obtained all needed repairs, but he made no attempt to enter there. Even if his chronometer were out of order, as he alleges, he must have known where he was. He claims to have been a good sailor. He had in his hands the Coast Pilot directions. He was all the while in sight of the coast, and it is incredible that he did not recognize his vicinity to Cape Haytien. Instead of entering it he kept along the coast, saluted with a French flag a passing vessel, and entered Fort Liberté, an obscure port of Hayti, not open to commerce and only about twenty miles from Cape Haytien, mistaking it, as he says, for the harbor of La Plata in San Domingo. I am unable to see how his entrance into Fort Liberté could have been due to any such mistake. The distance from Cape Haytien was too short, only about twenty miles. La Plata is nearly one hundred miles east. The approaches to the two ports, as described in the sailing directions, are notably unlike, and as the land all the way from Cape Haytien must have been in sight, he must have known he was far from La Plata.

At Fort Liberté he floated a French flag, never an American; proclaimed his vessel to be the Guillaume Tell from Havana, bound to Havre; ordered his men to speak only the French language, and asserted that his own name was Jules Letellier. He even caused a letter to be written to the French consul repeating these false statements, signed Jules Letellier. The excuse given for this attempted deception is that when on entering the port he saw the Haytian flag he was terrified, remembering his trouble at Port au Prince. I think that is a very insufficient excuse. There was no cause for any such scare, and it is difficult to believe that it existed. The bark had been given a clearance from Port au Prince, and, if she was in distress, that accounted fully for her being again in a Haytian port for repairs.

The falsehoods mentioned were not all he told. He said he had been at Guadaloupe, had been obliged to throw part of his cargo overboard, and that he had been aground on those banks. False statements, when attempts to mislead, very naturally awaken the suspicion of those to whom they are made, and they are in some measure evidence of guilt. Pelletier's attempted deception was soon discovered by the French consul and the Haytian authorities, and his arrest and the seizure of the bark followed.

In view of the facts thus mentioned, which I think are established by the evidence, I can hardly escape from the conviction that the voyage