the national character of a person domiciled within the city of New Orleans, and within the actual military lines of the United States' forces, and therefore was not inconsistent with the views held by the Court in the case of the "Circassian;" that in the other cases cited on behalf of the claimants, the character of the possession of the belligerent was in no way called in question, but was conceded to have been complete and absolute, and therefore that they had no possible application to sustain the doctrine contended for by the claimants.

VI. That the blockade of New Orleans was not a mere de facto blockade, but was a blockade by proclamation and notification of the most solemn sort, and to be terminated with due solemnity, by notice and proclamation; that the obligation to give a warning applied only to those cases in which vessels sailed without notice of the blockade, and that it was absurd to say that it was necessary to endorse a formal warning on the papers of a ship which was under a charterparty obligating her to break the blockade.

As to the respective rights of the claimants in the three memorials.

I.

Case No. 432 was a claim by Henry James Barker, of London, England, a British subject by nativity, for 23,2007. (with interest thereon from May 4, 1862), being the amount of certain mortgages on the "Circassian,' existing at the time of her capture, and given and assigned to secure indebtedness to the claimant of the amount recited in the mortgages.

It was alleged that the proofs showed that at the time of the capture, one Zachariah Charles Pearson was the sole owner of the vessel, and that there then existed three mortgages on said steamship, which her said owner had previously executed, and which remained unsatisfied; that one of these mortgages was executed to the claimant to secure advances made by him to Pearson, and that the other two were assigned to the claimant shortly after the date of capture, on his paying the amounts secured thereby to the persons from whom he, as a broker, had borrowed said sums for the use and benefit of Pearson; that no part of said indebtedness,

except 1,8007., was ever paid; that no security other than said mortgages was ever taken for said indebtedness; that Pearson became a bankrupt in July, 1862; that the vessel was, at the time of capture, worth from 30,000l. to 40,0007., and that she was taken by the United States into the public service at 107,000 dollars, in the currency of the United States, being her value ascertained by appraisement.

It was argued that the 71st section of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, as interpreted by the Courts of Law and Equity of Great Britain, makes the mortgagee the real owner of the ship, even before the time of redemption expires, and his title becomes perfect under the power of sale in the mortgage. It was also argued that the subsequent bankruptcy of the owner did not affect the rights of the claimant as a mortgagee under a mortgage duly registered, according to the requirements of the Merchants' Shipping Act of 17th & 18th Vic., cap. 1, sec. 104.

Reference was made to the argument filed in the case of the "Empress" (John Loft, claimant, No. 387), for a more full discussion of the rights and standing before the Commission of a mortgagee of a British vessel.*

On behalf of the United States, it was contended that a mortgagee merely, not in possession of the vessel at the time of the capture, had no standing to make reclamation before the Commission in respect of the mortgaged vessel.

Reference was made to the argument on this question, filed in the case of the "Empress," herein before referred to.

It was also urged that the assignees of the bankrupt, Pearson, were the only persons who could properly be claimants with respect to this ship, and it was insisted that the proofs presented by the claimant, as to the transactions between himself and Pearson, were wholly insufficient to prove the alleged indebtedness and to establish his claim.

An Award, in respect of this claim, for the sum of 71,428 dollars in gold was made by two Commissioners, the American Commissioner not signing the same, but filing no dissenting opinion.

* See Report on said case.

II.

Case No. 433 was a claim by Messrs. Overend, Gurney and Co., of London, England (all the members of the firm being British subjects), for 48,000 dollars (less 7847.), with interest from May 4, 1862, the value of the freight due on the cargo of the "Circassian" at the time of her capture.

It was alleged that the proofs showed that at the time of the capture the freight duc under the terms of the charterparty amounted to the sum of 48,000 dollars; that, by an agreement made in April, 1862, in consideration of certain advances, Pearson, the owner of the vessel, assigned to the claimants the freight that was to become due for the voyage, in the prosecution of which the vessel was captured; that the advances made under this agreement exceeded the amount of the freight, and was never paid in whole or in part, except 7847.; and that the deeds made by the claimants to Overend, Gurney and Co., limited, and to inspectors under the Bankrupt Act, did not divest them of their interest in this claim, nor of their right to prosecute it before this Commission.

On behalf of the United States, it was contended that assignment of the freight-money was by way of collateral security merely, and did not give the claimants standing before the Commission without the joining of the owner, Pearson, with them; that the evidence as to the value of the freight was unsatisfactory and inconclusive; and that the conveyances made by the claimants to Overend, Gurney and Co., limited, and to their inspectors, divested the claimants of their claim and of their right to make reclamation.

An Award, in respect of this claim, was made by two Commissioners for 20,540 dollars in gold. The American Commissioner did not sign the Award, but filed no dissenting opinion.

III.

Case No. 444 was a claim by various British insurance companies and underwriters at Lloyd's, for the sum of 52,6367., being the total of all the insurances effected with British corporations and underwriters on the cargo of the "Circassian," which was valued at over 52,6357.,

and was sold by the United States for the sum of 243,479 dol. 49 c., and on which a total loss was paid.

On behalf of the claimants, it was contended that, although a part of the cargo had been shipped by French subjects, yet, inasmuch as the insurances were all made, and a total loss paid by British corporations and individual underwriters, the insurers had such an interest as gave them a right to prosecute their claim before this Commission.

The question as to the rights of insurers, and as to the rights of the insurers of property belonging to persons not subjects of Great Britain, was not fully discussed in this case, either by the Counsel for the claimants, or by the Agent and Counsel of the United States, it having been previously argued and determined in case of the Thames and Mersey Insurance Company (No. 427), to which reference was made.*

An Award was made by two Commissioners, in respect of this claim, for the sum of 133,296 dollars in gold. The American Commissioner did not sign the Award, but filed no dissenting opinion in relation thereto.

The Honourable W. Beach Lawrence, of Rhode Island, and Mr. N. Wilson, of Washington, were private Counsel in the case of the "Circassian."

Whether the capture of the "Peterhoff" and cargo was effected by violation of neutral waters, and whether there was probable cause for the capture.

As to the legality of neutral trade with Matamoros.

As to the evidence requisite to justify condemnation for alleged trading with the enemy.

As to the right of the owners of a neutral vessel, captured as lawful prize, but restored by the decree of the Prize Courts, to indemnity for losses occasioned by the capture, and particularly for the loss occasioned by an appraisement alleged to be unfair and inadequate.

See Report on case of the "Dashing Wave."

As to the right of the claimants to indemnity for costs and expenses taxed against them, in alleged violation of the mandate of the Supreme Court.

As to the right of persons on board a captured vessel to indemnity for detention as prisoners and alleged harsh treatment.

Of the cases presented to the Commission, those numbered 405 to 417, both inclusive, and 422 to 426, both inclusive, and 438 to 441, both inclusive, had their origin in the alleged wrongful capture of the steam-ship "Peterhoff" and cargo.

On behalf of the claimants it was maintained that the evidence before the Commission proved substantially the following facts:

The steam-ship "Peterhoff," owned by the claimants in case No. 405, who were British subjects, fully laden with a general cargo of merchandize, owned by British subjects, and fully documented as a British merchant vessel, sailed from London in January, 1863, on a voyage to Matamoros.

On the 20th of February, 1863, while proceeding on her voyage, and when about to enter the harbour of St. Thomas to procure coals, the vessel was stopped by an armed vessel of the United States, and her papers carefully examined and passed upon as correct. On the same day the vessel anchored in the harbour of St. Thomas, and there remained engaged in taking in coal until the 25th of February. During the time of her detention at St. Thomas there arrived there the United States' steamer "Massachusetts," having on board Admiral Charles Wilkes. At noon on said 25th day of February the "Peterhoff" proceeded to sea, and while steaming slowly out of the harbour of St. Thomas, met the United States' steamer "Vanderbilt" going in. When the "Vanderbilt" arrived off the harbour mouth she was observed to exchange signals with the Admiral's ship. The "Vanderbilt " then turned and followed the "Peterhoff" to sea, and when both vessels were some four or five miles from shore, but within sight of the port, the capture was made. After the capture the vessel was taken to New York, where proceedings in prize were instituted against the vessel and cargo, in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. A decree was entered in that Court, condemning the vessel and cargo as lawful prize.