as a principle of law, and as the sole ground for the condemnation of the vessel, that a bona fide purchase for a commercial purpose by a neutral in his own home port, of a ship of war of a belligerent that had fled to such port to escape from enemy vessels in pursuit, but which was bond fide dismantled prior to the sale and afterwards fitted up for the merchant service, does not pass a title above the right of capture by the other belligerent.

The case of the "Minerva," decided by Sir William Scott, and reported in 6 C. Robinson (397), and the case of the "Baltica," reported in 11 Moore's "Privy Council Reports," p. 185, and the remarks concerning these cases by Phillimore and Story, and of other writers on international law, were cited by the Court as establishing this doctrine; that the Court held furthermore that, although it was clear that the "Georgia," when purchased at Liverpool, was not a vessel of war, but had been dismantled, and was purchased as a merchant vessel and fitted up in good faith for the merchant service, yet the rule of law just stated was applicable to the case, because the rule was founded upon the propriety and justice of taking from the belligerent, not only the power of rescuing his vessel from the peril of capture by escaping into a neutral port, but also to take away the facility which would otherwise exist of again rajoining the naval force of the enemy by a collusive or even actual sale.

On behalf of the claimant, it was contended that of the material facts of flight, pursuit, and taking refuge, assumed and recited in the opinion of the Court, there was no evidence before the Commission, nor was there any before the Supreme Court; and that, as a matter of fact, it was not true that the "Georgia" took refuge in the port of Liverpool from the pursuing vessels of the United States.

It was also contended that no such doctrine as that contained in this decision had ever been previously judicially announced in any reported case, either in England or the United States; that a careful examination of the case of the "Minerva" plainly shows that Sir William Scott proceeded distinctly, if not solely, upon the ground that the ship was not absolutely and bona fide sold and delivered, so as to be completely and finally changed into a commercial ship, the property of a neutral purchaser, and that the controlling fact in his mind was the

failure to prove a bona fide transfer, which, in the case of the "Georgia," is manifest, and is expressly admitted; and that the writers named by the Supreme Court did not mean to do more than state the decision of Sir William Scott in the case of the "Minerva," and, in this very brief abstract of it, naturally omitted the qualifications placed upon it by that judge.

It was also contended that, as the good faith of the purchaser, and an intention to use the vessel in innocent trade as a merchant vessel were manifest and admitted, the reasons for the rule prescribed did not exist in this case, and therefore that the rule itself was not applicable.

It was also contended that the case did not stand before the Commission simply as an appeal from an inferior to a superior Court of Prize, but that the jurisdiction of the Commission had a broader significance, and imposed upon the Commissioners the duty of determining this and other claims upon their merits, and according to justice and equity; and that as no rule of law so stringent as that urged in this case had ever been made known or established by any judicial decision, and as the personal innocence and good faith of the claimant were conspicuously manifest, the justice and equity of his claim for relief could not be doubted.

The demurrer was sustained, and the claim disallowed by the unanimous Award of the Commissioners.

AMERICAN CASES.

"ST. ALBANS' RAID."

Claims of United States' citizens arising out of a raid, made by men in pay of the so-called Confederate Government, on the village of St. Albans, in the State of Vermont, on the 19th day of October, 1864.

No. 1, First National Bank of St. Albans; No. 2, Collins H. Huntingdon; No. 3, W. Fuller and E. D. Fuller; No. 4, B. Barlow, receiver of the St. Albans' Bank; No. 5, M. Field, administratrix; No.6, S. W. Langdon; No. 7, J. S. Weeks; No. 8, S. Buck and J. Wetherbee, jun.; No. 9, A. O. Brainerd; No. 10, C. F. Everest; No. 13, O. A. Burton, et al.; No. 14, L. B. Clough, administrator, v. Great Britain.

Twelve claims, as enumerated above, were presented growing out of the St. Albans' raid, alleged by the memorialists to have been organized in and to have proceeded from Canada.

It was proven that a large number of refugees from the so-called Confederate States were domiciled or commorant in Canada, and there was evidence tending to show that the raid was organized there.

This evidence was however not positive, and was not inconsistent with the supposition (for which there was some ground in the evidence on the part of Great Britain) that the raid was planned and organized in the United States. There was no military organization of the raiders proved to have existed in Canada, and the evidence showed that they entered St. Albans at different times, in small parties, as ordinary travellers.

The substantial question raised was, whether there was such "knowledge and sufferance" on the part of Great Britain, as to render her responsible for the acts of the

raiders, supposing the secret organization of the raid to have taken place in Canada.

As the law and facts of these claims are so fully and clearly discussed in the briefs, which, in fairness to the claimants, it is thought necessary to append in full (see Appendix, Papers Nos. 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 61 and 65), it is not proposed to add anything more to this Report, except to mention that all the above claims were disallowed by the three Commissioners.

LAKE ERIE RAID.

No. 19.-Walter O. Ashley v. The Great Britain.

The memorialist alleged, and brought evidence to prove:

1. That he brought this suit for himself, and as assignee for others, for injuries and losses incurred by the citizens of the United States' private steamers, "Philo Parsons" and "Island Queen," by men in the pay of the so-called Confederate Government.

2. That on the 19th of September, 1864, a party of about thirty men, under the direction of commissioned officers of the so-called Confederate Government, who had for some time previous been domiciled in Canada, came on board the "Philo Parsons" in the guise of passengers, at the Canadian Port of Malden, when the aforesaid steamer touched at said port while on her regular trip from Detroit, Michigan, to Sandusky, Ohio.

3. That as soon as the boundary line between the two countries had been passed, said party of men rose in arms upon the crew and took forcible possession of the steamer.

4. That they then proclaimed their intention to capture the United States' steamer-of-war, "Michigan," then stationed on Lake Erie, near Johnson Island, Ohio, where about 3,000 Confederate prisoners were confined.

66

5. That, shaping the course of the " Philo Parsons" for the Michigan," they overhauled and sunk in American waters the steamer "Island Queen."

6. That instead, however, of boarding the "Michigan" they proceeded to Sandwich, in Canada, where, after

having plundered the "Philo Parsons," and having tried to sink her, they retreated in a body within the Canadian provinces.

7. That through the negligence, &c., &c., of the British officials, only one of the raiders was arrested, and after some delay surrendered to the United States' Government; and that Her Britannic Majesty's Government was liable for all the injuries and losses caused by said raid.

It appeared by the Report of Colonel Hill, United States' army, commanding the Michigan district, that on the 18th of September, 1864, the day before the raid, he was informed of the intention to seize the "Philo Parsons;" and that on the morning of the raid he went down to the steamer, and, after mature consideration, determined to let her start on her regular trip, in order to secure the capture of the whole party of raiders.

It was also shown, by the evidence filed by the claimant, that the claim now brought against Her Britannic Majesty's Government had been presented in September, 1865, to Mr. Seward, United States' Secretary of State, at the instance of General Dix, apparently as a claim against the United States' Government; and that Mr. Seward had forwarded it to the United States' War Department, who refused to pay the same only on the ground that "there were no funds available for the purpose."

The claimant's Counsel confined himself entirely to the discussion of the following points:

I. That the municipal law of the neutral was inadequate to the emergency, and was not seasonably made sufficient.

II. That the neutral did not exercise due diligence in the punishment of the offenders after they took refuge and found an asylum in Canada.

The general question of the responsibility of Great Britain was discussed by Her Britannic Majesty's Counsel in his brief in the St. Albans' cases, and in this case he contended that, even admitting, argumenti gratia, the two points of the claimant's Counsel, Great Britain could not be held responsible, since :

I. The damage resulted not from the concoction or undertaking of the raid, but from its successful completion to the extent to which it was completed.